Subject: Re: as long as we're hitting FFS...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/23/1999 19:33:15
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Eduardo E. Horvath wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to make clear is that the current proposal was for
> > changes to sys/ufs/ffs, not for the creation of sys/ufs/liffs. As such, we
> I for one would feel much more comfortable if it were in sys/ufs/liffs.
> FFS is the single most important filesystem and breakage there is
> potentially catastrophic. Also, most ports have support for FFS
> filesystems in the bootloaders and these changes would have to go there as
Then we have to keep two copies of the files options LIFFS has changed,
and make sure that changes in one go into the other.
That's a mess.
> Consider how long LFS has been broken without any really ill effects.
> This `LIFFS' is a different on-disk format that is incompatible with all
> existing FFS-derived filesystems including filesystems used by Ultrix,
> Sunos, and SVR4 derivatives. Because of that I assert that it is a
> different filesystem and should be separate.
But it was not implimented as a seperate filesystem. It was implimented as
ffs with larger inodes. The first 128 bytes of a large inode are treated
the same as the first 128 bytes of a small inode.
If you really don't like it, you don't have to define options LIFFS. :-)