From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6779E8002 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:48:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED40AC002 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (mondschein.lichtvoll.de [194.150.191.11]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2GoJBXII2JQ1Z4So for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:48:44 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Steigerwald Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_mkfs: wipe old signatures from the device Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:48:41 +0100 References: <1360667215-14701-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20130214110423.GN26694@dastard> (sfid-20130214_122246_817720_6973E5AA) In-Reply-To: <20130214110423.GN26694@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201302141548.42185.Martin@lichtvoll.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: sandeen@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Karel Zak , Zach Brown , =?utf-8?q?Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1_Czerner?= , Chris Murphy 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. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs