Subject: Re: SGI XFS filesystem
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/28/1999 17:59:15
Andrew Brown <email@example.com> writes:
> how's this then: if changes are made to ext2fs (or ntfs, or any of the
> "non-native" fs types), we (netbsd, that is) will have to play catch
> up. but if changes are made to ffs or lfs, that's changes that we (by
> definition) already have, so there's no catch up period.
Really? So, if FreeBSD or BSDI adds some nifty feature to FFS that
changes the on-disk format it magically appears in our source tree?
Or, as another example, how 'bout that softdep code.
Certainly we don't _have_ to catch up, but neither do we have to catch
up with changes in FAT-family file systems or in ext2fs!
If you're going to use that metric, at this point probably the _only_
file system that would qualify as 'native' is LFS... Does anybody
else have that up and going?
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.