On 3/19/15 6:13 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:55:25AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: ... >> Problem here is that if both are explicitly specified, one is ignored, rather >> than letting the user know they've selected an invalid set of options: > > Yup, I explicitly made that choice: turning off CRCs immediately > turns off all functionality dependent on it. Especially as the > number of errors being thrown by xfstests when run with > MKFS_OPTIONS="-m crc=0". > >> # mkfs/mkfs.xfs -dfile,name=fsfile,size=1g -m crc=0,finobt=1 >> meta-data=fsfile isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=65536 blks >> = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1 >> = crc=0 finobt=0 >> ... > >> This might require a "finobtflag" to keep track of whether it's user-specified, >> as we do with other options? > > I *hate* the profusion of flags in mkfs just to detect this sort of > thing. This is a clear case where "do what I mean" rather than "do > what I say" is the prefered behaviour - the current code is a > horrible mess because it tries handle every weird combination of "do > what I say" with some error message. > > I'll change it to add the stupid error message back in and go and > write all the patches for xfstests not to fail because we changed > mkfs defaults... Oops, I accidentally missed reply-all last time. I just think that silently changing an explicitly-specified option seems like a bad idea. Perhaps if defaults are specified before getopt, the getopt handlers can flag the incorrect combination, and bail without the extra flag. I don't see how this requires xfstests rework, though? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
