Re: [PATCH] Use new sb type

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 10 2008 12:27, David Greaves wrote:
>   
>>> I do not see anything wrong by specifying the SB location as a metadata
>>> version. Why should not location be an element of the raid type?
>>> It's fine the way it is IMHO. (Just the default is not :)
>>>       
>> There was quite a discussion about it.
>>
>> For me the main argument is that for most people seeing superblock versions
>> (even the manpage terminology is version and subversion) will correlate
>> incremental versions with improvement.
>> They will therefore see v1.2 as 'the latest and best'.
>> Feel free to argue that the manpage is clear on this - but as we know, not
>> everyone reads the manpages in depth...
>>     
>
> That is indeed suboptimal (but I would not care since I know the
> implications of an SB at the front);
>
> Naming it "1@front" / "1@back" / "1@4K" or so would address this.
>
>   
We have already discussed names and Neil has expressed satisfaction with 
my earlier suggestion. Since "@" is sort of a semi-special character to 
the shell, I suspect we are better off avoiding it.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  "Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
  be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark