jim owens wrote: > What I'm saying is that we should find some other name for > the flag than "NO_DIRECT" because it is easier than trying > to explain away the confusion. Any other suggestions? I proposed "PHYSICAL" because it corresponds with the name of the fe_physical field. Following this thread, I'm thinking it would be better to change the sense of the flag, too, from NO_DIRECT to DIRECT. I.e. only set when access to the physical device is usable. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
