Subject: Re: Moving (some) fs kernel code under sys/fs/ ?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/15/2001 17:02:06
email@example.com ("Jaromír Dolecek") writes:
> For the start, I'd like to move ntfs, adosfs, filecorefs, smbfs,
> msdosfs under there. Maybe even isofs/cd9660 should move. I'm not
> quite sure about sys/coda/, it should probably stay since there is
> also the pseudo-device part (or it should be split under fs/coda/
> and dev/coda/). I think that miscfs/ should stay. nfs/ and ufs/ should
> stay too, of course.
Why be inconsistent? i.e., if ntfs, adosfs, etc., can move, why not
ufs and nfs?
isofs/cd9660 should probably be flattened down to one level of
hierarchy. Its current location is a 4.4-ism, and it's not at all
clear that it's really The Right Thing. (it should probably be
fs/iso9660 or something, and 'iso9660' should be accepted as a valid
name for the FS as well as cs9660.)
(i've not put much thought into it, though.)