![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||