Am Donnerstag, 14. Februar 2013 schrieb Dave Chinner: > > So I > > think that it got to the point where users will usually use mkfs.xfs > > -f all the time. And even if they did not and they would use a wrong > > device they would probably get the same warning even for the device > > they wanted to use in the first place. > > I get a couple of queries a year from people saying they > accidentally ran mkfs.ext4 on the wrong device and want to know if > they can recover their XFS filesystem. The next question is usually > "why didn't mkfs.ext4 warn me there was an existing filesystem on > the device like mkfs.xfs does?". > > That is why the "don't overwrite an existing filesystem by default" > behaviour is important. Users like to be protected from mistakes > they weren't aware they made, and far too few of our filesystem > utilities provide that safety net. > > A couple of users a year losing data like this is a couple of users > too many. Especially when it would only take a couple of hours of > your time to implement.... > > > So even thoug it might help in some cases I do not think that we > > should go and change all file systems to do that as well, it would > > not be very useful anyway. > > Tell that to the next user that trashes their data because a > filesystem tool simply assumed in correctly that it owned the block > device. Full ACK. I always loved that mkfs.xfs asks in that case. IMO its just sane to do so. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
