On 2/14/13 8:48 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > 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. I just sent a patch to do so for btrfs-progs, FWIW. :) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
