From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ric Wheeler Subject: Re: e2fsck -y says "yes" to "Abort?" Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:29:28 -0400 Message-ID: <49ECBF08.6030806@redhat.com> References: <49E9DF6A.1090000@redhat.com> <20090418161710.GF19186@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Sandeen , ext4 development To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:45749 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754694AbZDTS3f (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:29:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090418161710.GF19186@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Tso wrote: > 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 > -- > The only down side is when you try to automate this (say in an appliance) and you don't have a human reading the output. In this case, you might just want to invert the logic but in general, it does seem dangerous to invert the logic for a long standing option, Ric