On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:01:17AM -0600, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > 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. >
Yeah sorry Goffredo I agree and I changed it locally, I just haven't sent it out yet. 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
