From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4320F7F37 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:42:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322DF304032 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vlJvxPztECJA4oue for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5CEF6214D14 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs.xfs: add [-U uuid] option References: <1442855060-38259-1-git-send-email-mel@ohmu.fi> <20150921221839.GC19114@dastard> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <5600B206.20806@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150921221839.GC19114@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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 9/21/15 5:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 08:04:20PM +0300, Mika Eloranta wrote: >> The UUID can now be optionally specified during filesystem >> creation. > > Which UUID are you wanting to set - the metadata uuid or the user > visible UUID label? Or both? At mkfs time it should be the same / both. (the only reason they need to diverge is a post-mkfs user-visible change on a V5 fs). Can you explain the use case for this? > i.e. I'm trying to work out why Why doesn't mkfs.xfs + > xfs_admin -U doesn't work for you? > > We need some explaination in the commit message so that when we look > at this in a couple of years time we know why we added this to > mkfs... I'm a little curious to know why it's desired, but it's also so trivial it seems worth accepting if it's useful to someone. mke2fs (mkfs.ext[234]) and mkfs.btrfs can do this today as well, so something seems to be driving the desire for the feature. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs