> "Greg A. Woods" <woods@most.weird.com> writes:

> > 	With "fs" suffix:	Without "fs" suffix:
> > 	=================	====================
> > 	filecorefs
> 
> So counting this way we get a much more even split.  The method names
> and variable names, etc. would have to be attended to if we do a
> rename.  Finally, there is the issue of what the files in the
> directory are called.  For example, the files in filecorefs/ begin
> filecore_, while those in msdosfs/ begin msdosfs_

I am the guilty party in the case of filecore. Apart from the directory
name, I think that everything else uses just filecore_* (function names,
file names etc). My preference would be for the filecorefs directory
to be renamed fs/filecore. I was thinking that there should really be
an 'fs' directory when installing the filecore fs.

Especially if all the fs's move into a seperate directory, I do not
see any problem with filesystems with a 'long' name (eg filecore,
coda, iso9660) just being known by that name (without 'fs' on the
end). New filesystems should be encouraged to use this
format. However, the 'fs' on nfs, ffs, mfs etc is an integral part of
the name of the filesystem and should be kept.

	Andrew