On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:27:32PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 06:39 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Too many people come complaining about losing their data -- and indeed,
> > there's no warning outside a wiki and the mailing list tribal knowledge.
> > Message severity chosen for consistency with XFS -- "alert" makes dmesg
> > produce nice red background which should get the point across.
>
> Wouldn't it be much better to disallow:
> - creation
> AND
> - mounting
> of btrfs unless some special swtich like:
> --yes-i-know-this-is-still-extremely-experimental
> is given for the time being?
I have no preference here.
> Normal users typically don't look at any such kernel log messages - and
> expert users (who do) anyway know, that it's still unstable.
My previous attempt here was https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9450035/
in btrfs-progs. This time I'm submitting a kernel variant, as it won't be
out of sync if you use a modern kernel on a 10 years old RHEL userland.
I can revive that -progs patch, and fix code issues (ie, printing the
message during parsing); I'd like to hear whether kernel or -progs is
better. We can even do both.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Meow!
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Collisions shmolisions, let's see them find a collision or second
⠈⠳⣄ preimage for double rot13!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
