On 02/17/2012 05:45 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 05:59:24PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote: >> we wipe the filesystem signatures from device before do mkfs, >> since we can't trust mkfs can remove the filesystem signature absolutely. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <[email protected]> >> --- >> daemon/mkfs.c | 9 +++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/daemon/mkfs.c b/daemon/mkfs.c >> index 5475582..19224ec 100644 >> --- a/daemon/mkfs.c >> +++ b/daemon/mkfs.c >> @@ -181,6 +181,15 @@ do_mkfs_opts (const char *fstype, const char *device, >> int blocksize, >> ADD_ARG (argv, i, device); >> ADD_ARG (argv, i, NULL); >> >> + /* we wipe the filesystem signatures from device before do mkfs, >> + * since we can't trust mkfs can remove the filesystem signature >> absolutely. >> + */ >> + if (do_wipefs (device)) { > > You should test do_wipefs () == -1 here. > >> + reply_with_error ("%s: %s: %s", fstype, device, err); > > Calling reply_with_error will cause an error to be sent twice (once > from do_wipefs, once here), and you'll lose protocol synchronization. > > In any case, I'm doubtful that this patch is useful. If callers want > to wipe the filesystem before doing mkfs, they can just call wipefs > themselves. It sounds like this will just slow down mkfs and make it > more likely to fail.
Hmm..... yeah, if people wanna wipe the filesystem before doing mkfs, they can call wipefs themselves. We can't do any thing for users. ;) Agree~! :-) Thanks -Wanlong Gao > > Rich. > _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
