Re: unhooking lfs from ufs

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 11:07:55AM +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
 > > > How would this affect UFS side?  For example, any potential code
 > > > reduction and/or simplification?
 > > 
 > > Yes. ufs_readwrite.c will become much less gross, for example. There
 > > used to be assorted LFS-only code in the ufs sources; ad@ removed the
 > > ifdefs some time ago but they could be resurrected and then used to
 > > purge the relevant code. I don't know how much code that is.
 > > 
 > > As for deeper simplifications, I don't know without digging around a
 > > lot more than I have (particularly in the ext2fs code), but there
 > > should be some.
 > 
 > Good, I think it would be great to look into this.

The ifdefs in question aren't, as it turns out, large, just a matter
of being able to remove one ufsop that only lfs cares about.

However, as I recall ad had a whole list of reasons he wanted to
remove lfs, most of which pertained to its effect on ufs. I don't have
this list; maybe he can be persuaded to share it.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost