Subject: Re: Moving (some) fs kernel code under sys/fs/ ?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2001 16:51:25
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.)
Well, if you're going to be shuffling around all those
filesystems, how about renaming all the non-filesystems
too. For instance, specfs is not really mountable. It
would make more sense to call it specvn.