Hi,

> > This would be in line with how mount and fsck work.
> 
> ...this makes me wonder: we have mount, fsck, and potentially newfs,
> all of which can theoretically work on different filesystem types.  Is
> there some commonality here which can be exploited?  Perhaps we should

I can only applaud(sp?) to this. 

> have /usr/src/filesystems/{ffs,lfs,msdosfs,adosfs,...}, each of which
> contains mount/, fsck/, newfs/, and such subdirectories...and
> potentially others, such as common/.  A case could be made for having

With common hopefully containing most of the code and only calling
fs-specific code using a proper fs-independent interface:-)

[...]
> This would help keep related code together instead of either (a)
> scattering it throughout the source tree or (b) having it all together
> and then having one program pull in files living in a
> not-obviously-related place elsewhere in the tree.

I've had problems with a) and b) before, because not all src was online
due to limited diskspace.

  Guenther