From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:40:15 -0500 Message-ID: <41734DB2-49FF-41B7-A37A-8670E6B80397@mit.edu> References: <4B8C1B25.5050006@redhat.com> <20100312024831.GN1497@thunk.org> <31D4615D-CB8C-48D7-934D-2CDAF327CF44@sun.com> <4B9A5AFF.5020401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andreas Dilger , ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-4.MIT.EDU ([18.9.25.15]:62090 "EHLO dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751854Ab0CLPpU (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:45:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B9A5AFF.5020401@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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(); Yeah, I'll just make the change on my end. -- Ted