[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] mkfs: default to CRC enabled filesystems

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs: default to CRC enabled filesystems
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:26:49 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150319231323.GK10105@dastard>
References: <1426720967-8215-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <550AE35D.40006@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20150319231323.GK10105@dastard>
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?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>