From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:57946 "EHLO mail-wg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753724Ab3BZTLn (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:11:43 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id dq12so3629397wgb.0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:11:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <512D092F.5040003@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:12:47 +0100 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Steigerwald CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Tsutomu Itoh , Eric Sandeen , chris.mason@fusionio.com, Stefan Behrens , David Sterba Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] btrfs-progs: require mkfs -f force option to overwrite filesystem or partition table References: <511D2D2B.8040804@redhat.com> <512BFCD1.3030709@redhat.com> <512C3230.8020305@jp.fujitsu.com> (sfid-20130226_100038_658757_45BCF698) <201302261137.46319.Martin@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <201302261137.46319.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/26/2013 11:37 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013 schrieb Tsutomu Itoh: >>>> Therefore I want you to revert >>>> commit:2a2d8e1962e8b6cda7b0a7584f6d2fb95d442cb6. >>>> >>>> btrfs-progs: require mkfs -f force option to overwrite filesystem >>>> or partition table >>>> >>>> How do you think about it? >>> >>> What if you submit a patch to look at an environment variable, >>> BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 which causes it to not require -f to overwrite? >>> Then you can just set it once at the top of your test environment, >>> and not change every instance? >> >> Yes. But, >> >> (Most of my test scripts fails without -f. So I'll always type >> "mkfs.btrfs -f") is one example. >> >> Almost everyone types "mkfs.btrfs -f" (or BTRFS_CLOBBERS_ALL=1 :) >> unconditionally, I think. >> So, I think -f option is almost meaningless. > > No. > > I donīt. me too > > And I teach not to in my trainings as well. > > Everyone who uses rm -rf by default even just for deleting a single file does > it as long as he or she deleted his / her home directory or something. Unfortunately the "rm -rf" is a different case. Removing a directory is a common case. We should not be forced to use the -f for common case. A '-f' flag should be used only in "uncommon" case (like *re*format a disk or a test-suite)... However I think that '-f' is good for mkfs.btrfs. > > Ciao, -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5