On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 03:29:33PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> The first step would be to stop it from being the default (as Trond
> has suggested a number of times :-)
>
> How about this.
> I release a 1.0.10 shortly which addresses some 'portlist' related
> breakage and prints a nasty warning if you have neither subtree_check
> or no_subtree_check, but still defaults to subtree_check.
>
> Then the next release will be 1.1.0 which prints the same warning,
> but defaults the other way - and probably removed the warning if you
> include neither sync not async.
>
> That should at least get subtree_check to be used less.
Sounds good to me. (Though for these kinds of changes I suppose it's
the time elasped that matters more than the number of released
versions--people probably upgrade every x months/years/whatever rather
than every x versions. By that criteria I think we might be making the
subtree_check change a little fast, while the warning period for the
sync change may already be overkill....)
> I think it is a great idea for a 'filesystem' to support multiple
> independent file-trees within the one storage set, which is roughly
> what you are saying I think (though probably not quite).
>
> However I suspect that most people don't actually want subtrees. They
> just get it as the default. It isn't something that I would have
> implemented if I hadn't inherited the requirement, and no other OS
> that I know of provides that particular semantic.
Could be.
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
