On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 04:11:00PM +0200, Filippo Valsorda wrote: > Fair enough, but "there's no auto-assembly and it's inefficient and > nothing stops you from messing with the intermediate discipline" is a > different kind of not supported than "you should expect kernel panics". > > If the latter is the case, maybe it should be documented in the > softraid(4) CAVEATS, as it breaks the sd(4) abstraction.
Neither Joel's mail nor the word "unsupported" imply a promise that it will work without auto-assembly and with inefficient i/o. Unsupported means unsupported. We don't need to list any reasons for this in user-facing documentation.
