On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:51:16AM -0700, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Wed, 9 Apr 2003 18:38:44 +0000 (UTC), "David Laight" wrote:
> > The problems start with naming the fs!
> 
> uh, really?
> 
> > The obvious thing would be to have:
> > 	ufsv1	ufsv1 support only
> > 	ufsv2	ufsv2 support only
> > 	ufs	v1 and v2 support
> > (done in a similar way to the current lfsv1/2 build)
> 
> Well, right now the boot blocks themselves are often called "*ffs*"
> right?  (despite the fact that the code uses ufs* names internally.)
> 
> So, keep the existing ufs names.  add ufsv2 names which handle ufsv2.
> 
> then just add ufsv2 entries to boot blocks' file_system arrays as
> appropriate.
> 
> I don't see why you need a single piece of object code that handles
> both.  (sure, compile them from the same sources if you want w/
> different #defines, but why insist on cramming them into the same .o?)

When you get to the second stage bootstrap (which handles multple
fs types, but still has some size constraints) it makes sense to
have the single file supporting ufs and ufs2.

Also the person (forgotten who it was) who added ufs2 support made the
code support ufsv1 or ufsv1 and ufsv2.
Made me think there was some good reason to do it that way.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk