From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use new sb type Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:36 -0500 Message-ID: <47AFC1D4.2040605@tmr.com> References: <479E1C95.1040008@dgreaves.com> <479FB1FB.6040500@tmr.com> <47AED31A.3070704@dgreaves.com> <47AEEDAD.5050405@dgreaves.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: David Greaves , neilb@suse.de, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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 "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark