From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>
Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org
 regarding reiser4 inclusion
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:48:33 -0400
Message-ID: <44DA03D1.1000100@slaphack.com>
References: <200607312314.37863.bernd-schubert@gmx.de> <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <20060801165234.9448cb6f.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <1154446189.15540.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44CF9BAD.5020003@emc.com> <44CF3DE0.3010501@namesys.com> <20060803140344.GC7431@merlin.emma.line.org> <44D219F9.9080404@namesys.com> <44D231DF.1080804@namesys.com> <44D37E1B.1040109@namesys.com> <44D3ECB5.1060106@namesys.com> <44D66ADD.6020007@namesys.com> <44D99F96.4090804@namesys.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608091352440.23404@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-29557-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608091352440.23404@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, Edward Shishkin <edward@namesys.com>, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, ric@emc.com, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Adrian Ulrich <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>, "Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>, bernd-schubert@gmx.de, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, jbglaw@lug-owl.de, clay.barnes@gmail.com, rudy@edsons.demon.nl, ipso@snappymail.ca, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.