On Feb 10 2008 12:27, David Greaves wrote: >> >> 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 :) > >There was quite a discussion about it. > >For me the main argument is that for most people seeing superblock versions >(even the manpage terminology is version and subversion) will correlate >incremental versions with improvement. >They will therefore see v1.2 as 'the latest and best'. >Feel free to argue that the manpage is clear on this - but as we know, not >everyone reads the manpages in depth... That is indeed suboptimal (but I would not care since I know the implications of an SB at the front); Naming it "1@front" / "1@back" / "1@4K" or so would address this. - 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
