From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>,
Lukas Herbolt <lukas@herbolt.com>,
aalbersh@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] xfsprogs: mkfs.xfs add default configuration file.
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 09:29:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260514162914.GY9555@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fddc8573-8461-475f-9826-ee465c48c969@sandeen.net>
On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 11:05:14AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/14/26 10:21 AM, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Lukas Herbolt wrote:
> >> Various users may prefer different default values. Having a default config
> >> file will allow them to utilize it without the need specifying configuration
> >> file on command line.
> >>
> > The idea seems reasonable, to have a default file to load if it's found.
> > I just particularly don't like the idea of shipping/installing a 'default'
> > config file.
> > I think we could ship an "example" one, but leave to distributions to decide
> > what to do. If they would install a default config or not. And maintain
> > the default config file.
> > LTS configs are easy to maintain because we know no new features will be
> > ported to LTS. Providing a default config file from the mainline risks
> > getting a lot of user complains if we in the future decide to change the
> > 'defaults' of the default config file.
>
> Thanks for starting this discussion Lukas.
>
> I'm sure others will have Deeper Thoughts but I more or less agree with
> Carlos here - a default config file to be loaded /if it exists/ but maybe
> not existing by default - because we already have defaults hardcoded into
> the binary itself - might be a more maintainable path for upstream.
> Otherwise I see new tests appearing which are like "make sure the dfault
> config we ship matches the defaults built into the binary itself" which
> seems like unneeded complexity.
>
> (i.e. the os-specific config files could be renamed or symlinked to
> that special default config file path, for example?)
>
> I could maybe see generating an example defaults config file which matches
> the built-in defaults at build time? Not sure if that would be useful
> or helpful (or complex).
I think that would be a lot easier than us trying to keep the default
config file in sync with xfs_mkfs.c by hand.
--D
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-14 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-14 14:37 [RFC PATCH 0/1] Add default config file for mkfs.xfs Lukas Herbolt
2026-05-14 14:37 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] xfsprogs: mkfs.xfs add default configuration file Lukas Herbolt
2026-05-14 15:21 ` Carlos Maiolino
2026-05-14 16:05 ` Eric Sandeen
2026-05-14 16:29 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2026-05-14 16:27 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-05-14 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH 0/1] Add default config file for mkfs.xfs Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260514162914.GY9555@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=aalbersh@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@herbolt.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox