> 2020-10-24 16:41 GMT+02:00 Stefan Sperling :
> > 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.
It's documented in the FAQ:
> Note that "stacking" softraid modes (mirrored drives and encryption,
> for example) is not supported at this time
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#softraidFDE
