Konrad Schroder <perseant@hitl.washington.edu> writes:
> But why not put ufs in there too?  And while you're reorganizing, why not
> organize the whole thing into a sensible hierarchy, something like:
> [ ... ]

Too many 'fs'es.  8-)  at the very least, the middle layer doesn't
need them.


> 	/usr/src/sys/fs:
> 			emulfs:
> 				{ados,filecore,iso,msdos,nt}fs
> 				(hfs? hpfs? xfs? vxfs? The possibilities
> 				are endless)

These have little to do with emulation.  They're real, first-class
on-disk file systems, or should be, just as much as the ufs file
systems are.


> 			genfs
> 			internalfs:
> 				{kern,proc,spec,fifo,dead}fs, fdesc, portal
> 			layerfs:
> 				{null,umap,union}fs
> 			remotefs:
> 				nfs, coda (afs?)
> 			ufs:
> 				{f,l,u}fs

If you're going in this direction, i think i believe:

	internal
	layer
	remote
	local (with ufs under here, along with the rest of the disk fses)

remote and local are actually probably better put as "disk" and "network".



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.