From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zdenek Kabelac Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:38:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 13/18] fsadm: remove -y (YES) option In-Reply-To: <1317130971-24173-14-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> References: <1317130971-24173-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1317130971-24173-14-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E81EDE3.5020406@redhat.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dne 27.9.2011 15:42, Lukas Czerner napsal(a): > There is some confusion in using -y (YES) and -f (FORCE) options in > fsadm. In some cases we are asked for yes/no question which can be > override by -f option, but not by -y option. Usually most of the questions > tools ask for are yes/no and it can be overridden by forcing it with -f > (e.g. fsck.(extN|xfs), lvm and others...) so it make sense to get rid of > -y option and use only -f instead. > > Also I do not think it is wise to use -y option in fsck.extN since > people using fsadm would probably not know how it works, so we should > NOT provide them with that option, but rather let them use "real" fsck > instead (and let them read man page if needed). Also running fsck with > -y when you have corrupted file system is probably not a good idea from > multiple reasons. This is also fixed by this commit. > > This commit removes '-y' option and use '-f' instead. With exception of > fsck. > NACK -f and -y are different. While fsck will proceed with -f on mounted file system (leading to certain damage) -y option will stop here and just answer -y to question about umount. And also you would change command line syntax and change the behavior of already written scripts. Zdenek