From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EAogk-0004SI-JZ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 09:01:21 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j81D14x3023682 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:01:04 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j81D14Nb104494 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:01:04 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j81D148Y024846 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:01:04 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel In-Reply-To: <20050901125707.GA1623@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20050901120030.GB694@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <1125578756.4884.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050901125707.GA1623@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:00:48 -0500 Message-Id: <1125579648.27733.2.camel@windu.rchland.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind?= Harboe , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: PATCH: allow JFFS2 to write to really small disks List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:57 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Thu, 1 September 2005 14:45:56 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:00 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > > > But who mounts a *tiny* JFFS2 volume except those that will be using it > > > > as a WORM drive? > > > > > > People making mistakes. It is a very important usability issue to > > > mark mistakes as such. Making it appear as if everything is ok and > > > having it fail later, possibly days or weeks later, is bad usability. > > > > > > I would agree with you if the user-perceived behaviour was > > > *immediatly* and *noticably* different. But unless people write > > > enough data to fill their fs, the difference may go unnoticed. > > > > Sounds good. > > > > If I get some indication that there is a consensus from > > maintainers/committers to add this mount option, I'll go ahead and write > > it up. > > You're asking for too much. :) > > Most of the time, most people just don't care. If they actually do > care and are opposed to your patch, they will speak up. But you won't > ever find out before actively trying to merge the patch. I agree with Jörn on this point. It should be a mount option. Not that my opinion amounts to much... :) josh