[PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[Eric Sandeen]

RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is not a tty and -F is passed

This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.

Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---

diff --git a/misc/mke2fs.c b/misc/mke2fs.c
index 4b13367..2a23bf7 100644
--- a/misc/mke2fs.c
+++ b/misc/mke2fs.c
@@ -1643,7 +1643,8 @@ got_size:
 		       device_name, retval);
 		printf(_("This may result in very poor performance, "
 			  "(re)-partitioning suggested.\n"));
-		proceed_question();
+		if (!force)
+			proceed_question();
 	}
 #endif
 

Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[tytso]

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is not a tty and -F is passed
> 
> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Applied to the maint branch.

				- Ted

Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[Andreas Dilger]

On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is  
>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>
>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.

Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?   
I dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it  
will commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended  
problem.

We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems  
somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)  
for situations where it previously worked just fine.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[Eric Sandeen]

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>>
>>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
> 
> Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?  I
> dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it will
> commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended problem.
> 
> We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
> somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
> for situations where it previously worked just fine.

Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
I guess.

Ted do you want to just toss in:

-		if (!force)
-			proceed_question();

?  I can send a patch but it may take longer for you to extract it from email ;)

-Eric

Re: [PATCH] mke2fs: skip alignment questioning if -F specified

[Theodore Tso]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On 2010-03-11, at 19:48, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:53:09PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> RH bug 569021 - mke2fs insists on user interaction even if stdin is
>>>> not a tty and -F is passed
>>>> 
>>>> This is just a warning, -F should easily override it.
>> 
>> Since this is just a warning, do we really need to have "-F" at all?  I
>> dislike requiring "-F" on common actions, because it means that it will
>> commonly be used, but may accidentally override some unintended problem.
>> 
>> We've lived without block device alignment until now, and it seems
>> somewhat unpleasant that mke2fs may start failing (if -F is not given)
>> for situations where it previously worked just fine.
> 
> Well, that's a good point, dropping the -F requirement is fine with me too,
> I guess.
> 
> Ted do you want to just toss in:
> 
> -		if (!force)
> -			proceed_question();


Yeah, I'll just make the change on my end.


-- Ted