Karel Zak wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:07:56PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:59:36PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > > > time bases uuids are not safe if uuidd is not running. > > > Add option --force to generate a uuid in this case nevertheless. > > > > I really wouldn't worry about time-based uuid if you're grabbing them > > from uuidgen. Yes, if you're generating thousands of uuid's in > > parallel via the C interface, it's possible that you potentially force > > a collision. But via the command-line interface of uuidgen? > > I agree with Ted. > > Let's go one step back (sorry Ludwig). It would be really better to > add --safe rather than --force. We can use the --safe option to test > the new *_safe functions or for really paranoid environments, but we > should not force people use the new functionality. Actually never mind, forget about the patches. I'm perfectly fine with a 'no'. This discussion now finally documents in public the background and reasons why things are the way they are. Thanks a lot for your patience and Ted for the detailed explanation! cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
