Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.orgregarding reiser4 inclusion
From: David Masover
Date: Wed Aug 09 2006 - 11:46:28 EST
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Yes, it looks like a business of node plugin, but AFAIK, youDid I really? Well, I think that allowing users to choose whether to
objected against such checks:
checksum or not is a reasonable thing to allow them. I personally would
skip the checksum on my computer, but others....
It could be a useful mkfs option....
It should preferably a runtime tunable variable, at best even
per-superblock and (overriding the sb setting), per-file.
Sounds almost exactly like a plugin. And yes, that would be the way to
do it, especially considering some files will already have internal
consistency checking -- just as we should allow direct disk IO to some
files (no journaling) when the files in question are databases that do
their own journaling.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/