Stefan Richter wrote:
Those systems (servers) typically have enough memory to tolerate a few
extra KB of code without problems. In fact most PCs these days have.
It would be a stupid solution nevertheless.
(We also don't "select EXT3".)
It's not the prettiest solution, but it would reduce the number of
"support incidents." And, after all, reducing the number of support
incidents is the goal of usability.
Not selecting EXT3 is a little more understandable, because there are
many options -- cramfs, xfs, reiserfs, etc, depending on target.
However, the number of people who DO want SATA support but DO NOT want
SD block device support is... uh.. anyone?
Solving the problem bigger and better, by factoring "SD" into a
mid-level menu, and maybe calling it something non-SCSI, would probably
be even better. And even more work.
OK, I'll go hide now and try not to fan any flames. And thanks again to
Andi for nailing my problem right away!
Cheers,
/ h+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
