Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- From: John Baldwin <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:27:29 -0400
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what
seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660. Is there any reason not to move it?
Curious mostly..
Eric
Inertia, mostly. And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs? Let the
bi-yearly debate begin.....
Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up
fairly regularly. We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though,
so thanks for giving it a kickstart.
We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. Only
cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and ufs
alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra isofs
directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.
--
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- From: Scott Long
- Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- From: Alexander Leidinger
- Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- References:
- isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- From: Eric Anderson
- Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- From: Scott Long
- isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- Prev by Date: Re: kqueue disable on delivery...
- Next by Date: Speaking of BGE(4)- followup
- Previous by thread: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- Next by thread: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|