From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:17:19 -0600
Message-ID: <4B9A5AFF.5020401@redhat.com>
References: <4B8C1B25.5050006@redhat.com> <20100312024831.GN1497@thunk.org> <31D4615D-CB8C-48D7-934D-2CDAF327CF44@sun.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <31D4615D-CB8C-48D7-934D-2CDAF327CF44@sun.com>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>>
>>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
> 
> Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?  I
> dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it will
> commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended problem.
> 
> We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
> somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
> for situations where it previously worked just fine.

Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
I guess.

Ted do you want to just toss in:

-		if (!force)
-			proceed_question();

?  I can send a patch but it may take longer for you to extract it from email ;)

-Eric