All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "Dave Chinner" <david@fromorbit.com>,
	"Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	"Chris Murphy" <lists@colorremedies.com>,
	"Karel Zak" <kzak@redhat.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, "Zach Brown" <zabrown@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_mkfs: wipe old signatures from the device
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:35:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <511D2E88.4010403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201302141548.42185.Martin@lichtvoll.de>

On 2/14/13 8:48 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 schrieb Dave Chinner:
>>> So I
>>> think that it got to the point where users will usually use mkfs.xfs
>>> -f all the time. And even if they did not and they would use a wrong
>>> device they would probably get the same warning even for the device
>>> they wanted to use in the first place.
>>
>> I get a couple of queries a year from people saying they
>> accidentally ran mkfs.ext4 on the wrong device and want to know if
>> they can recover their XFS filesystem. The next question is usually
>> "why didn't mkfs.ext4 warn me there was an existing filesystem on
>> the device like mkfs.xfs does?".
>>
>> That is why the "don't overwrite an existing filesystem by default"
>> behaviour is important. Users like to be protected from mistakes
>> they weren't aware they made, and far too few of our filesystem
>> utilities provide that safety net.
>>
>> A couple of users a year losing data like this is a couple of users
>> too many. Especially when it would only take a couple of hours of
>> your time to implement....
>>
>>> So even thoug it might help in some cases I do not think that we
>>> should go and change all file systems to do that as well, it would
>>> not be very useful anyway.
>>
>> Tell that to the next user that trashes their data because a
>> filesystem tool simply assumed in correctly that it owned the block
>> device.
> 
> Full ACK.
> 
> I always loved that mkfs.xfs asks in that case.
> 
> IMO its just sane to do so.

I just sent a patch to do so for btrfs-progs, FWIW.  :)

-Eric



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, "Karel Zak" <kzak@redhat.com>,
	"Zach Brown" <zabrown@redhat.com>,
	"Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	"Chris Murphy" <lists@colorremedies.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_mkfs: wipe old signatures from the device
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:35:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <511D2E88.4010403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201302141548.42185.Martin@lichtvoll.de>

On 2/14/13 8:48 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 schrieb Dave Chinner:
>>> So I
>>> think that it got to the point where users will usually use mkfs.xfs
>>> -f all the time. And even if they did not and they would use a wrong
>>> device they would probably get the same warning even for the device
>>> they wanted to use in the first place.
>>
>> I get a couple of queries a year from people saying they
>> accidentally ran mkfs.ext4 on the wrong device and want to know if
>> they can recover their XFS filesystem. The next question is usually
>> "why didn't mkfs.ext4 warn me there was an existing filesystem on
>> the device like mkfs.xfs does?".
>>
>> That is why the "don't overwrite an existing filesystem by default"
>> behaviour is important. Users like to be protected from mistakes
>> they weren't aware they made, and far too few of our filesystem
>> utilities provide that safety net.
>>
>> A couple of users a year losing data like this is a couple of users
>> too many. Especially when it would only take a couple of hours of
>> your time to implement....
>>
>>> So even thoug it might help in some cases I do not think that we
>>> should go and change all file systems to do that as well, it would
>>> not be very useful anyway.
>>
>> Tell that to the next user that trashes their data because a
>> filesystem tool simply assumed in correctly that it owned the block
>> device.
> 
> Full ACK.
> 
> I always loved that mkfs.xfs asks in that case.
> 
> IMO its just sane to do so.

I just sent a patch to do so for btrfs-progs, FWIW.  :)

-Eric


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-14 18:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-12 11:06 [PATCH] xfs_mkfs: wipe old signatures from the device Lukas Czerner
2013-02-12 11:31 ` Karel Zak
2013-02-12 11:58   ` Lukáš Czerner
2013-02-12 20:27 ` Dave Chinner
2013-02-13  8:01   ` Karel Zak
2013-02-13 10:41     ` Lukáš Czerner
2013-02-13 12:16       ` Karel Zak
2013-02-13 12:16         ` Karel Zak
2013-02-13 22:17         ` Dave Chinner
2013-02-13 22:17           ` Dave Chinner
2013-02-14  7:29           ` Chris Murphy
2013-02-14  7:29             ` Chris Murphy
2013-02-14  8:36             ` Lukáš Czerner
2013-02-14 11:04               ` Dave Chinner
2013-02-14 11:04                 ` Dave Chinner
2013-02-14 12:28                 ` Lukáš Czerner
2013-02-14 14:48                 ` Martin Steigerwald
2013-02-14 14:48                   ` Martin Steigerwald
2013-02-14 18:35                   ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2013-02-14 18:35                     ` Eric Sandeen
2013-02-14 14:54                 ` Hugo Mills
2013-02-14 14:54                   ` Hugo Mills
2013-02-14 17:25               ` Eric Sandeen
2013-02-14 17:25                 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-02-14 19:08                 ` Chris Murphy
2013-02-14 11:45           ` Dave Howorth
2013-02-14 19:17             ` Eric Sandeen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=511D2E88.4010403@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=Martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=kzak@redhat.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@colorremedies.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=zabrown@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.