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 6C08D7F37 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:26:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADB7AC006 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tTtqjxP0a60hEVzH for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <550C3C39.8050400@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:26:49 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs: default to CRC enabled filesystems References: <1426720967-8215-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <550AE35D.40006@sandeen.net> <20150319231323.GK10105@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20150319231323.GK10105@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 3/19/15 6:13 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:55:25AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: ... >> Problem here is that if both are explicitly specified, one is ignored, rather >> than letting the user know they've selected an invalid set of options: > > Yup, I explicitly made that choice: turning off CRCs immediately > turns off all functionality dependent on it. Especially as the > number of errors being thrown by xfstests when run with > MKFS_OPTIONS="-m crc=0". > >> # mkfs/mkfs.xfs -dfile,name=fsfile,size=1g -m crc=0,finobt=1 >> meta-data=fsfile isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=65536 blks >> = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 >> = crc=0 finobt=0 >> ... > >> This might require a "finobtflag" to keep track of whether it's user-specified, >> as we do with other options? > > I *hate* the profusion of flags in mkfs just to detect this sort of > thing. This is a clear case where "do what I mean" rather than "do > what I say" is the prefered behaviour - the current code is a > horrible mess because it tries handle every weird combination of "do > what I say" with some error message. > > I'll change it to add the stupid error message back in and go and > write all the patches for xfstests not to fail because we changed > mkfs defaults... Oops, I accidentally missed reply-all last time. I just think that silently changing an explicitly-specified option seems like a bad idea. Perhaps if defaults are specified before getopt, the getopt handlers can flag the incorrect combination, and bail without the extra flag. I don't see how this requires xfstests rework, though? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs