>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> writes: Bill> John Stoffel wrote: >> Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock? Bill> Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to Bill> this question? If you don't understand why there are three Bill> locations, perhaps that would be a good initial investigation. Because I've asked this question before and not gotten an answer, nor is it answered in the man page for mdadm on why we have this setup. Bill> Clearly the short answer is that they reflect three stages of Bill> Neil's thinking on the topic, and I would bet that he had a good Bill> reason for moving the superblock when he did it. So let's hear Neil's thinking about all this? Or should I just work up a patch to do what I suggest and see how that flies? Bill> Since you have to support all of them or break existing arrays, Bill> and they all use the same format so there's no saving of code Bill> size to mention, why even bring this up? Because of the confusion factor. Again, since noone has been able to articulate a reason why we have three different versions of the 1.x superblock, nor have I seen any good reasons for why we should have them, I'm going by the KISS principle to reduce the options to the best one. And no, I'm not advocating getting rid of legacy support, but I AM advocating that we settle on ONE standard format going forward as the default for all new RAID superblocks. John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
