mkfs: Use rpmatch() to yes/no questions

This patch changes the are_you_sure() function to make use of rpmatch() to identify the user's answer in the language set in the i18n Also add 2 another translatable strings

---
 gfs2/mkfs/main_mkfs.c |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

index 4751f19..cc678fe 100644
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int discard_blocks(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 	range[0] = 0;
 	range[1] = sdp->device.length * sdp->bsize;
 	if (sdp->debug)
-		printf("Issuing discard ioctl: range: %llu - %llu...",
+		printf(_("Issuing discard ioctl: range: %llu - %llu..."),
 		       (unsigned long long)range[0],
 		       (unsigned long long)range[1]);
 	if (ioctl(sdp->device_fd, BLKDISCARD, &range) < 0) {

@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static int discard_blocks(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 		return errno;
 	}
 	if (sdp->debug)
-		printf("Successful.\n");
+		printf(_("Successful.\n"));
         return 0;
 }
 

@@ -456,8 +456,11 @@ fail:
 
 static void are_you_sure(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 {
-	char input[32];
+	char *line = NULL;
+	size_t len = 0;
 	int fd;
+	int ret = -1;
+	int res = 0;
 
 	fd = open(sdp->device_name, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC);
 	if (fd < 0)

@@ -465,14 +468,25 @@ static void are_you_sure(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 	printf( _("This will destroy any data on %s.\n"), sdp->device_name);
 	check_dev_content(sdp->device_name);
 	close(fd);
-	printf( _("\nAre you sure you want to proceed? [y/n] "));
-	if(!fgets(input, 32, stdin))
-		die( _("unable to read from stdin\n"));
+	
+	do{
+		printf( _("Are you sure you want to proceed? [y/n]"));
+		ret = getline(&line, &len, stdin);
+		res = rpmatch(line);
+		
+		if (res > 0){
+			free(line);
+			return;
+		}
+		if (!res){
+			printf("\n");
+			die( _("aborted\n"));
+		}
+		
+	}while(ret >= 0);
 
-	if (input[0] != 'y')
-		die( _("aborted\n"));
-	else
-		printf("\n");
+	if(line)
+		free(line);
 }
 
 /**

1.7.6

are_you_sure() function should not make an open/close test on the underlying device. The pourpose of this function is just to ask a yes/no question to the user. If we need a function to do this test, we should create a new function with its specific pourpose.
This patch also fix a call to are_you_sure() function and move the are_you_sure() function to the begining of the file, allowing it to be used in another part of the code

---
 gfs2/mkfs/main_mkfs.c |   75 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

index cc678fe..8802ef7 100644
@@ -289,6 +289,39 @@ static void test_locking(char *lockproto, char *locktable)
 	}
 }
 
+/**
+ * are_you_sure - protect lusers from themselves
+ * @sdp: the command line
+ *
+ */
+
+static void are_you_sure(void)
+{
+	char *line = NULL;
+	size_t len = 0;
+	int ret = -1;
+	int res = 0;
+
+	do{
+		printf( _("Are you sure you want to proceed? [y/n]"));
+		ret = getline(&line, &len, stdin);
+		res = rpmatch(line);
+		
+		if (res > 0){
+			free(line);
+			return;
+		}
+		if (!res){
+			printf("\n");
+			die( _("aborted\n"));
+		}
+		
+	}while(ret >= 0);
+
+	if(line)
+		free(line);
+}
+
 static void verify_bsize(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 {
 	unsigned int x;

@@ -448,46 +481,6 @@ fail:
 	exit(execv(args[0], args));
 }
 
-/**
- * are_you_sure - protect lusers from themselves
- * @sdp: the command line
- *
- */
-
-static void are_you_sure(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
-{
-	char *line = NULL;
-	size_t len = 0;
-	int fd;
-	int ret = -1;
-	int res = 0;
-
-	fd = open(sdp->device_name, O_RDONLY|O_CLOEXEC);
-	if (fd < 0)
-		die( _("Error: device %s not found.\n"), sdp->device_name);
-	printf( _("This will destroy any data on %s.\n"), sdp->device_name);
-	check_dev_content(sdp->device_name);
-	close(fd);
-	
-	do{
-		printf( _("Are you sure you want to proceed? [y/n]"));
-		ret = getline(&line, &len, stdin);
-		res = rpmatch(line);
-		
-		if (res > 0){
-			free(line);
-			return;
-		}
-		if (!res){
-			printf("\n");
-			die( _("aborted\n"));
-		}
-		
-	}while(ret >= 0);
-
-	if(line)
-		free(line);
-}
 
 /**
  * print_results - print out summary information

@@ -576,7 +569,7 @@ void main_mkfs(int argc, char *argv[])
 	}
 
 	if (!sdp->override)
-		are_you_sure(sdp);
+		are_you_sure();
 
 	if (!S_ISREG(st_buf.st_mode) && device_topology(sdp)) {
 		fprintf(stderr, _("Device topology error\n"));

1.7.6

This patch takes advantage of the are_you_sure() function to ask a yes/no question within verify_bsize() function

---
 gfs2/mkfs/main_mkfs.c |    9 +--------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

index 8802ef7..0bd1410 100644
@@ -350,14 +350,7 @@ static void verify_bsize(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
 		if (sdp->override)
 			return;
 
-		printf( _("\nAre you sure you want to proceed? [y/n] "));
-		if(!fgets(input, 32, stdin))
-			die( _("unable to read from stdin\n"));
-
-		if (input[0] != 'y')
-			die( _("aborted\n"));
-		else
-			printf("\n");
+		are_you_sure();
 	}
 }
 

1.7.6

----- Original Message -----

| This patch takes advantage of the are_you_sure() function
| to ask a yes/no question within verify_bsize() function
| 

Hi,

Looks good.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems

Hi,

Modulo my comment on the first patch, otherwise these look good,

Steve.

----- Original Message -----

| are_you_sure() function should not make an open/close
| test on the underlying device. The pourpose of this
| function is just to ask a yes/no question to the user.
| If we need a function to do this test, we should create
| a new function with its specific pourpose.
| This patch also fix a call to are_you_sure() function and
| move the are_you_sure() function to the begining of the
| file, allowing it to be used in another part of the code
| 
| Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <[email protected]>

Hi,

This all looks good and makes sense. I am concerned that removing the open/close might change the behavior when errors occur: For example, if you try to mkfs.gfs2 for a device you don't have permission to. Or for a device that doesn't exist. Please test those two cases to make sure nothing weird happens.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems

Hi Bob,

Maybe my mistake to not have written it before, but, I've checked the are_you_sure() calls into the code, and before any call to are_you_sure() we have a open/close test, so, we had the are_you_sure() doing a second test.

Portions of code in the main_mkfs() function (almost at the begining of the function):

553 sdp->device_fd = open(sdp->device_name, O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC);
554 if (sdp->device_fd < 0)
555 die( _("can't open device %s: %s\n"),
556 sdp->device_name, strerror(errno));
557
558 if (fstat(sdp->device_fd, &st_buf) < 0) {
559 fprintf(stderr, _("could not fstat fd %d: %s\n"),
560 sdp->device_fd, strerror(errno));
561 exit(-1);
562 }
563
564 if (!sdp->override)
565 are_you_sure();
.
.
591 verify_bsize(sdp);

After that, we have a call to are_you_sure() inside the verify_bsize() function, but, the verify_bsize() is called once, in the main_mkfs() too, after the check specified on the code snippet above.
What do you think? Are these 3 patches ok to push?

--Carlos

----- Original Message -----

| Hi Bob,
| 
| Maybe my mistake to not have written it before, but, I've checked the
| are_you_sure() calls into the code, and before any call to
| are_you_sure()
| we have a open/close test, so, we had the are_you_sure() doing a
| second
| test.
| 
| Portions of code in the main_mkfs() function (almost at the begining
| of the function):

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for clearing that up. I should have looked myself; sorry. Yes, the patches look good to push as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File System

----- Original Message -----

| This patch changes the are_you_sure() function
| to make use of rpmatch() to identify the user's
| answer in the language set in the i18n
| Also add 2 another translatable strings
| 
| Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <[email protected]>
| ---

Hi,

Looks good.

Regards,

Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems

Hi,

   errno = ESOMETHING;
   perror();