Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932941AbZIDHo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 03:44:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932784AbZIDHo4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 03:44:56 -0400 Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:34961 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932472AbZIDHoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 03:44:55 -0400 From: Rob Landley Organization: Boundaries Unlimited To: jim owens Subject: Re: [testcase] test your fs/storage stack (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 02:44:53 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.28-14-generic; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Ric Wheeler , Pavel Machek , david@lang.hm, Theodore Tso , Florian Weimer , Goswin von Brederlow , kernel list , Andrew Morton , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net References: <20090826001645.GN4300@elf.ucw.cz> <200909022141.48827.rob@landley.net> <4A9FCF53.10105@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9FCF53.10105@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909040244.54772.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1431 Lines: 32 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/