From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp206.alice.it ([82.57.200.102]:54358 "EHLO smtp206.alice.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754429Ab2GWRBX (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:01:23 -0400 Message-ID: <500D835D.6060105@inwind.it> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:01:17 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josef Bacik CC: Wendy Cheng , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs-progs: detect if the disk we are formatting is a ssd V2 References: <1342811743-8748-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> <5009B323.3040607@libero.it> <20120723124620.GI2118@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20120723124620.GI2118@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > . >