[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, David Greaves wrote:
That's not a bad thing - until you look at the complexity it brings -
and then consider the impact and exceptions when you do, eg hardware
acceleration? md information fed up to the fs layer for xfs? simple
long term maintenance?
Often these problems are well worth the benefits of the feature.
I _wonder_ if this is one where the right thing is to "just say no" :)
so for several reasons I don't see this as something that's deserving of
an atomatic 'no'
David Lang
Err, re-read it, I hope you'll see that I agree with you - I actually just meant
the --assume-clean workaround stuff :)
If you end up 'fiddling' in md because someone specified --assume-clean on a
raid5 [in this case just to save a few minutes *testing time* on system with a
heavily choked bus!] then that adds *even more* complexity and exception cases
into all the stuff you described.
I'm very much for the fs layer reading the lower block structure so I don't have
to fiddle with arcane tuning parameters - yes, *please* help make xfs self-tuning!
Keeping life as straightforward as possible low down makes the upwards interface
more manageable and that goal more realistic...
David
-
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]
