From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: Time to deprecate old RAID formats? Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:03:34 -0400 Message-ID: <471E7DC6.7050206@tmr.com> References: <18200.49267.763509.924873@stoffel.org> <18200.53593.687483.120827@stoffel.org> <1192810534.1666.68.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.56684.14194.630264@stoffel.org> <1192813877.1666.79.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18200.63987.514073.184865@stoffel.org> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Stoffel Cc: Doug Ledford , Justin Piszcz , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids John Stoffel wrote: > Why do we have three different positions for storing the superblock? > Why do you suggest changing anything until you get the answer to this question? If you don't understand why there are three locations, perhaps that would be a good initial investigation. Clearly the short answer is that they reflect three stages of Neil's thinking on the topic, and I would bet that he had a good reason for moving the superblock when he did it. Since you have to support all of them or break existing arrays, and they all use the same format so there's no saving of code size to mention, why even bring this up? -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979