Jan Engelhardt wrote:
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.
We have already discussed names and Neil has expressed satisfaction with
my earlier suggestion. Since "@" is sort of a semi-special character to
the shell, I suspect we are better off avoiding it.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
-
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
