From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 19 18:54:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from happy.checkpoint.com (happy.checkpoint.com [199.203.156.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF04737B9AF; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:54:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mellon@pobox.com) Received: (from mellon@localhost) by happy.checkpoint.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA09098; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:56:24 +0300 (IDT) (envelope-from mellon@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:56:24 +0300 From: Anatoly Vorobey To: Adrian Chadd Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fsck wrappers Message-ID: <20000620045623.A9045@happy.checkpoint.com> References: <20000619134233.O13112@zoe.bastard.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000619134233.O13112@zoe.bastard.co.uk>; from adrian@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:42:33PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 01:42:33PM +0200, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > * the rest of the system treats ffs filesystems as "ufs". Besides the > fact that I dislike this, I decided against the NetBSD way of Isn't it time, anyway, to fix this? This legacy dates from long time ago; e.g. the log message in the kernel code which declares the ffs module (it reads: `` Call ffs ``ufs'' for the benefit of poor, confused user-land programs. '') dates to September '94. Are there any arguments against changing the filesystem type name to 'ffs' in the kernel and in the userland? If not, I'll volunteer to find all kernel/userland uses I can and provide a diff. -- Anatoly Vorobey, mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/ "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message