> effect, where I would just redefine the struct name and all the other code
> would "just work", as long as the fs struct has appropriate items.
> Has the name prefixing some reason, or is it just left-over,
> it-was-so-from-day-1 thing ?

C originally put all union and struct member names into a single table,
and so the same member name could not be used in multiple structs unless
its offset and type were the same in every use.  This gave way to the
prefix-your-member-names style.  C hasn't had this problem since 1983 or
so, but a lot of folks are used to the style.  In particular, some folks
believe that complex this->that->foo.bar[baz] is easier to understand if
there are prefixes everywhere.  I don't think so, but I smell a small
controversy brewing.