On Feb 10 2008 10:34, David Greaves wrote: >Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> On Jan 29 2008 18:08, Bill Davidsen wrote: >> >>>> IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options >>>> (google "Time to deprecate old RAID formats?") and the superblocks >>>> to emphasise the location and data structure. Would it be good to >>>> introduce the new names at the same time as changing the default >>>> format/on-disk-location? >>> Yes, I suggested some layout names, as did a few other people, and >>> a few changes to separate metadata type and position were >>> discussed. BUT, changing the default layout, no matter how "better" >>> it seems, is trumped by "breaks existing setups and user practice." >> >> Layout names are a different matter from what the default sb type should >> be. >Indeed they are. Or rather should be. > >However the current default sb includes a layout element. If the default sb is >changed then it seems like an opportunity to detach the data format from the >on-disk location. I do not see anything wrong by specifying the SB location as a metadata version. Why should not location be an element of the raid type? It's fine the way it is IMHO. (Just the default is not :) - 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
