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

[Lukas Czerner]

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.

-Lukas