[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F97C87.3060603@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:44:39 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC: "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][e2fsprogs] Allow user to disable Undo manager through
MKE2FS_SCRATCH_DIR
Theodore Tso wrote:
> (This will be merged into the patch "e2fsprogs: Make mke2fs use undo
> I/O manager" before the whole branch gets integrated into the next or
> master branches, using the magic that is git rebase --interactive.
> Also needing fixing is the code to hook into the profile lookup.)
What is the rationale for turning mke2fs into a nanny for
administrators, anyway? Maybe to complete the transformation we should
just make it a gtk application with a windows-like "Are you sure? [Yes]
[No]" alert dialog box that pops up?
Seriously, what does this gain us, other than a slowdown of an
already-slow mkfs? I'm sure there are stories of people who mkfs'd the
wrong device but there are a million sad stories out there; rm -rf /, dd
if=/dev/null of=/dev/sda, fdisk the wrong device, you name it. We can't
save them all. :)
The notion of an (optional) undo IO manager is fine in general, I like
the idea that if I have dicey fsck to do I can in theory recover from it
if it goes badly, though even there I'd personally rather not have it on
by default... (how do I turn it off for fsck?) But mkfs, by default -
really? I don't much like it, and on my boxes I'd like a way to
permanently turn it off, regardless of whether I'm testing or not...
Sure I could put it in my .bashrc or whatnot, but really, what does this
gain us?
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists