On 5/21/18 5:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:05:30AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:33:54AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:16:48AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 08:46:00PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
<shrug> Bikeshedding more, what if either option accepted either an
absolute path, or a file in $sysconfdir/etc/mkfs.xfs.d/ ?
I kinda assumed that config files could be located anywhere, but we
only searched the sysconfig path if it didn't point at a local
file...
<shrug> openat() semantics are fine enough with me, I think.
Well this is a big difference, and I think being clear on this would
be good. If the user specified:
-c foo
and the file 'foo' is present but also exists on
$sysconfdir/etc/mkfs.xfs.d/foo do we use the local file if the user
did not pass ./foo ?
I would have expected "foo" to be considered the same as "./foo".
It's a relative path.
Urgh, so now if foo exists in $PWD /and/ in $sysconfdir/etc/mkfs.xfs.d/foo
we have to have a hierarchy between the two? :/
Ok. back up. Honestly I think the only good reason to have config files
outside of $sysconfdir/etc/mkfs.xfs.d/ is to facilitate testing without
perturbing the system's files in order to do so.
In that case maybe we should distill it down to:
1) -c foo looks in $sysconfdir/etc/mkfs.xfs.d
2) -c /absolute/path/to/foo looks there, obviously
and drop relative paths. Absolute paths are more cumbersome but testing
scripts won't care about that. mkfs.xfs -c `pwd`/foo isn't that hard either.
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
