From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zdenek Kabelac Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:07:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 13/18] fsadm: remove -y (YES) option In-Reply-To: References: <1317130971-24173-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1317130971-24173-14-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <4E81EDE3.5020406@redhat.com> <4E89FC5B.2040101@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E8ABEA7.2080103@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 4.10.2011 08:29, Lukas Czerner napsal(a): > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > >> Dne 3.10.2011 18:39, Lukas Czerner napsal(a): >>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I am not saying that -f should be used instead of -y. >>> >>> That is why having both options for the fsadm does not make sense, >>> because it is not just fsck which fsadm is using internally. Force means >>> force, we are trying to simplify things here not map every argument of >>> every tool into fsadm. >>> >>> When user force things, he should know what is he doing, since he really >>> is using "force" :). -f option is quite generic and most of the tools >>> does have it, however -y options is specific, that is why fsadm does not >>> have -n option, or even -p option. >>> >>> Generally I am in favour of changing check command to only check for >>> file system consistency and if problems are found report to the user >>> that he should run proper fsck by itself, since it is a bit delicate >>> situation and the user should really know what is he doing if he does >>> not want to lose data. >>> >>> Finally I think that having both '-f' and '-y' option which are really >>> inconsistent among the tools does not make sense. >> >> Well think more about the difference between -y and -f. >> >> If something does not make sense to you, the first solution is to remove it, >> the second (harder) is to try to think about it deeply and try to understand >> for multiple reasons of this NACK - and from your other thread replies, it >> also applies to your other 'does not make sense to me' comments... >> >> Zdenek >> > > I think I gave you multiple reasons why it does not make sense, if you > do not want to listen, I do not really care :) but it does to change the > fact that it is not consistent and it is confusing. No talking about the > fact that doing fsck with -y might be really bad idea if you do not know > what you're doing, or if you at least do not have metadata backup. > Well simply take it as a fact -y and -f will stay. And please try to read what has been written (or even said) about the reasons these options have to stay supported - like all other options which are already part of fsadm. Zdenek