In article <199611101546.KAA03094@dyson.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <dyson@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Right, I certainly was not disagreeing with him, but Chris did state
> that the MFS uses MEMORY, and that was unclear what kind.  There is a really
> easy (good) thing that can be done with the MFS code (haven't gotten
> around to it.)  I suggest that using process space is silly, since
[lots of changes for MFS]
> The most significant disadvantage of our scheme is that
> directories and files would have a 1 page granularity,
> unless the code did some very careful memory management.
> I could imagine that a follow-up design would be able
> to address the issue easily, if it became bothersome.

Why do major whacking on MFS? Seems to me it'd be much easier to just
write a new fs type from scratch rather than attempting to change code
built around totally different assumptions.