From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Greaves Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use new sb type Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:34:02 +0000 Message-ID: <47AED31A.3070704@dgreaves.com> References: <479E1C95.1040008@dgreaves.com> <479FB1FB.6040500@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Bill Davidsen , neilb@suse.de, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Jan 29 2008 18:08, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >>> IIRC there was a discussion a while back on renaming mdadm options >>> (google "Time to deprecate old RAID formats?") and the superblocks >>> to emphasise the location and data structure. Would it be good to >>> introduce the new names at the same time as changing the default >>> format/on-disk-location? >> Yes, I suggested some layout names, as did a few other people, and >> a few changes to separate metadata type and position were >> discussed. BUT, changing the default layout, no matter how "better" >> it seems, is trumped by "breaks existing setups and user practice." > > Layout names are a different matter from what the default sb type should > be. Indeed they are. Or rather should be. However the current default sb includes a layout element. If the default sb is changed then it seems like an opportunity to detach the data format from the on-disk location. David