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 700948020 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:36:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027ADAC002 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Nc2A2EvW6RfPUPlW for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:36:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <511D2E88.4010403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:35:52 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_mkfs: wipe old signatures from the device References: <1360667215-14701-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <20130214110423.GN26694@dastard> (sfid-20130214_122246_817720_6973E5AA) <201302141548.42185.Martin@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <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: Martin Steigerwald Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Karel Zak , Zach Brown , =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBDemVybmVy?= , Chris Murphy , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 2/14/13 8:48 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > 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. I just sent a patch to do so for btrfs-progs, FWIW. :) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs