On 07/23/2012 02:46 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:38:59PM -0600, Wendy Cheng wrote:
>> However, this should have been a task for the admin (or whoever types >> this mkfs command). It is not a filesystem's job to assume how the >> firmware works and silently ignore the DUP request, *unless* there is >> a standard specification clearly describes linux devices that claim to >> be not "rotational" should behave this way. >> > > The admin can still use -m dup if he wants the added possiblity of protection, > this just makes the default not dup. Josef, this was clear to us with the the code at hand. However, what was pointed out is that is change of a well established behaviour without documenting it not informing it. I don't arguing about the rationale, what I am telling is : ok to the change but you have to inform the user. Saying "but the user can revert the change passing '-m dup'" is not a valid response, because the user *could* revert the change if he *would* be informed about the change. BR G.Baroncelli >Thanks, > > Josef > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
