On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer <cales...@scientia.net> wrote: > On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 13:13 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> mdadm supports DDF. > > Sure... it also supports IMSM,... so what? Neither of them are the > default for mdadm, nor does it change the used terminology :)
Why is mdadm the reference point for terminology? There's actually better consistency in terminology usage outside Linux because of SNIA and DDF than within Linux where the most basic terms aren't agreed upon by various upstream maintainers. mdadm and lvm use different terms even though they're both now using the same md backend in the kernel. mdadm chunk = lvm segment = btrfs stripe = ddf strip = ddf stripe element. Some things have no equivalents like the Btrfs chunk. But someone hears chunk and they wonder if it's the same thing as the mdadm chunk but it isn't, and actually Btrfs also uses the term block group for chunk, because... So if you want to create a decoder ring for terminology that's great and would be useful; but just asking everyone in Btrfs land to come up with Btrfs terminology 2.0 merely adds to the list of inconsistent term usage, it doesn't actual fix any problems. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
