2020-10-24 16:41 GMT+02:00 Stefan Sperling <[email protected]>: > 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.
I'm not suggesting justifying why, I am saying that softraid(4) is documented to assemble sd(4) devices into sd(4) devices. If it's actually "sd(4) devices that are not themselves softraid(4) backed", that would be worth documenting as it breaks the sd(4) abstraction. Said another way, how was I supposed to find out this is unsupported? It's not like "a mirrored full-disk encrypted device" is an exotic configuration that would give me pause.
