On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:54 PM Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 2023年10月13日 21:44，Mariusz Tkaczyk <mariusz.tkaczyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道： > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 20:12:38 +0800 > > Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>> So, it forces the calculations made by Neil back but I think that we can > >>>>> simply compare dev_size and data_offset between members. > >>>> > >>>> We don't need to consider the compatibility anymore in future? > >>>> > >>> Not sure if I get your question correctly. This property is supported now so > >>> why we should? It is already there so we are safe to set it. > >> > >> I asked because you said we can remove the check in future. So I don't > >> know why we don't need the check in future. The check here should be > >> the kernel version check, right? > > > > > > We are not supporting old kernels forever. At some point of time, we would > > decide that kernels older than 5.5 are no longer a valid case and then we will > > free to remove verification. If we are not supporting something older than the > > version where it was added, we can assume that MD_RAID0_LAYOUT is always > > available and we don't need to care anymore, right? > > > > Here a recent example: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/mdadm/mdadm.git/commit/?id=f8d2c4286a > > Just FYI, we still support Linux v4.12 based kernel for SLES12-SP5. > > Coly Li > Hi all Thanks for the explanation. Best Regards Xiao
