[lvm-devel] [PATCH v3 13/18] fsadm: remove -y (YES) option

[Zdenek Kabelac]

Dne 4.10.2011 08:29, Lukas Czerner napsal(a):
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
>> Dne 3.10.2011 18:39, Lukas Czerner napsal(a):
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dne 27.9.2011 15:42, Lukas Czerner napsal(a):
>>>>> There is some confusion in using -y (YES) and -f (FORCE) options in
>>>>> fsadm. In some cases we are asked for yes/no question which can be
>>>>> override by -f option, but not by -y option. Usually most of the
>>>>> questions
>>>>> tools ask for are yes/no and it can be overridden by forcing it with -f
>>>>> (e.g. fsck.(extN|xfs), lvm and others...) so it make sense to get rid of
>>>>> -y option and use only -f instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I do not think it is wise to use -y option in fsck.extN since
>>>>> people using fsadm would probably not know how it works, so we should
>>>>> NOT provide them with that option, but rather let them use "real" fsck
>>>>> instead (and let them read man page if needed). Also running fsck with
>>>>> -y when you have corrupted file system is probably not a good idea from
>>>>> multiple reasons. This is also fixed by this commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit removes '-y' option and use '-f' instead. With exception of
>>>>> fsck.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NACK
>>>>
>>>> -f  and  -y  are different.
>>>>
>>>> While  fsck will proceed with -f  on mounted file system (leading to
>>>> certain
>>>> damage) -y  option will stop here and just answer -y  to  question about
>>>> umount.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that -f should be used instead of -y.
>>>
>>> That is why having both options for the fsadm does not make sense,
>>> because it is not just fsck which fsadm is using internally. Force means
>>> force, we are trying to simplify things here not map every argument of
>>> every tool into fsadm.
>>>
>>> When user force things, he should know what is he doing, since he really
>>> is using "force" :). -f option is quite generic and most of the tools
>>> does have it, however -y options is specific, that is why fsadm does not
>>> have -n option, or even -p option.
>>>
>>> Generally I am in favour of changing check command to only check for
>>> file system consistency and if problems are found report to the user
>>> that he should run proper fsck by itself, since it is a bit delicate
>>> situation and the user should really know what is he doing if he does
>>> not want to lose data.
>>>
>>> Finally I think that having both '-f' and '-y' option which are really
>>> inconsistent among the tools does not make sense.
>>
>> Well think more about the difference between -y and -f.
>>
>> If something does not make sense to you, the first solution is to remove it,
>> the second (harder) is to try to think about it deeply and try to understand
>> for multiple reasons of this NACK - and from your other thread replies, it
>> also applies to your other  'does not make sense to me' comments...
>>
>> Zdenek
>>
>
> I think I gave you multiple reasons why it does not make sense, if you
> do not want to listen, I do not really care :) but it does to change the
> fact that it is not consistent and it is confusing. No talking about the
> fact that doing fsck with -y might be really bad idea if you do not know
> what you're doing, or if you at least do not have metadata backup.
>

Well simply take it as a fact -y  and -f  will stay.

And please try to read what has been written (or even said) about the reasons 
these options have to stay supported - like all other options which are 
already part of fsadm.

Zdenek