On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:01:46 -0400
someone wrote:
> You write:
> | Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a
> | little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?
>
> [...]
> It probably could be done. I do not think it would be small or easy.
> Especially if filesystem developers feel that modern drives only start
> experiencing user-visible write errors about when they are going to
> explode in general, they may rationally feel that the work is not worth
> it.
I can very well accept that argument. What I am trying to do is only make
_someone_ writing a fs listen to the problem, and maybe - only maybe - in _his_
fs it is not as complicated and so he simply hacks it in. I am only arguing for
having a choice. Not more. If e.g. reiserfs had the feature I could simply
shoot all extX stuff and use my preferred fs all the time. That's just about
it. No religion involved. I am not arguing this type of feature as a
_must-have_. I only think regarding the neat stuff that is already inside
reiser (just to name my currently preferred fs) it would be very kind to have
write-error-recovery additionally.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:28 EST