From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: e2fsck -y says "yes" to "Abort?" Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20090418161710.GF19186@mit.edu> References: <49E9DF6A.1090000@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext4 development To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:51562 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756790AbZDRQRR (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:17:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49E9DF6A.1090000@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 09:10:50AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I've got this bug filed against Fedora: > > sh-3.2# e2fsck -y /dev/VolGroup00/VolVol02 > e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) > The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 14090240 blocks > The physical size of the device is 8847360 blocks > Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt! > > Abort? yes > > I'm reluctant to invert the logic of the Abort? question as suggested > ("Are you sure you want to continue?") because this is a significant > enough problem that we probably should really pause for consideration. > > But it seems like perhaps stopping at "Abort?", allowing the user to say > "n" to that and then let the "-y" flag take over from there would be > reasonable. > > If this sounds ok I'll whip up a patch, something like a way to flag the > really serious questions (?) as unaffected by -y. Seems reasonable to me; we'll have to update the documentation to explain that -y really doesn't mean yes to _all_ questions, but that seems like the best approach. - Ted