>> Interesting. So, what's technically wrong with the patch below? > > My suggestion was that you stop trying to document your assertion of an > issue and actually suggest fixes in code or implementation. I really > don't think that you have properly diagnosed your specific failure or > done sufficient. However, if you put a full analysis and suggested code > out to the MD devel lists, we can debate technical implementation as we > normally do. I don't think I should be required to rewrite linux md layer in order to fix documentation. > The only note that I would put in ext3/4 etc documentation would be: > > "Reliable storage is important for any file system. Single disks (or > FLASH or SSD) do fail on a regular basis. Uh, how clever, instead of documenting that our md raid code does not always work as expected, you document that components fail. Newspeak 101? You even failed to mention little design problem with flash and eraseblock size... and the fact that you don't need flash to fail to get data loss. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
