Re: [testcase] test your fs/storage stack (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible)

[Rob Landley]

On Thursday 03 September 2009 09:14:43 jim owens wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > I think he understands he was clueless too, that's why he investigated
> > the failure and wrote it up for posterity.
> >
> >> And Ric said do not stigmatize whole classes of A) devices, B) raid,
> >> and C) filesystems with "Pavel says...".
> >
> > I don't care what "Pavel says", so you can leave the ad hominem at the
> > door, thanks.
>
> See, this is exactly the problem we have with all the proposed
> documentation.  The reader (you) did not get what the writer (me)
> was trying to say.  That does not say either of us was wrong in
> what we thought was meant, simply that we did not communicate.

That's why I've mostly stopped bothering with this thread.  I could respond to 
Ric Wheeler's latest (what does write barriers have to do with whether or not 
a multi-sector stripe is guaranteed to be atomically updated during a panic or 
power failure?) but there's just no point.

The LWN article on the topic is out, and incomplete as it is I expect it's the 
best documentation anybody will actually _read_.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
--
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/