Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.orgregarding reiser4 inclusion

[David Masover]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > Yes, it looks like a business of node plugin, but AFAIK, you
> > > objected against such checks:
> > Did I really?  Well, I think that allowing users to choose whether to
> > 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/