Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

Yes, it looks like a business of node plugin, but AFAIK, you
objected against such checks:

Did I really?  Well, I think that allowing users to choose whether to
checksum or not is a reasonable thing to allow them.  I personally would
skip the checksum on my computer, but others....

It could be a useful mkfs option....

It should preferably a runtime tunable variable, at best even
per-superblock and (overriding the sb setting), per-file.

Sounds almost exactly like a plugin. And yes, that would be the way to do it, especially considering some files will already have internal consistency checking -- just as we should allow direct disk IO to some files (no journaling) when the files in question are databases that do their own journaling.

-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Bernd Schubert <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: "Horst H. von Brand" <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Adrian Ulrich <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Ric Wheeler <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Edward Shishkin <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Edward Shishkin <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Edward Shishkin <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Hans Reiser <[email protected]>
  • Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Time to forbid non-subscribers from posting to the list?
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Relative lazy atime
• Previous by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
• Next by thread: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]