John S. Dyson wrote:
>   ^^^^  You are misinterpreting my position.

I certainly simplified and overstated it for effect, yes :-)

> My initial (read: simple) mods would be to MFS (please read my message.)
> Alot of bang for the buck can be gotten by some mods that would
> cost minimal amounts of time.  (Est 1-2 days of work for me.)

Nothing wrong with that.

> It still needs the naming structure, etc...  I didn't think anyone
> would be interested in developing another set of directory/file semantics.

Implementation != semantics. But in fact, not all of the semantics are
necessarily desirable (the value of the immutable and append-only flags
seems less clear, for example. There are probably better examples.)

> IMO, one of the mistakes in the MSDOSFS is that code wasn't derived using UFS.

Perhaps, but it too is a disk-based filesystem.

> The MFS "problem" can be solved in various ways.  So, we disagree more
> than I had thought, because it just seems to me to be a waste to
> reimplement userland filesystem semantics (and I assumed that we would
> naturally agree.)

Well, it depends on how it's done really. There may be value from some
parts of ufs, however, I suggest a design still be done without any
though of UFS, to stay pure. If when the design is done there is overlap
with UFS, use it for the implementation. I just think the circumstances
of a ram filesystem are different enough than anything we have now that
it really deserves a truly fresh approach.