From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 20 1: 3:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.bastard.co.uk (node16292.a2000.nl [24.132.98.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67E637BCC8 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adrian@bastard.co.uk) Received: from adrian by mail.bastard.co.uk with local (Exim 3.14 #1) id 134Ixs-0005iy-00; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:00:56 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:00:56 +0200 From: Adrian Chadd To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Anatoly Vorobey , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck wrappers Message-ID: <20000620100056.A13112@zoe.bastard.co.uk> References: <20000620045623.A9045@happy.checkpoint.com> <51001.961486789@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <51001.961486789@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:39:49AM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jun 20, 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20000620045623.A9045@happy.checkpoint.com>, Anatoly Vorobey writes: > >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. > > The correct way to do this is to make it accept both for some > limited time, and then warn about the obsolete for a few months, > then discontinue it. Thats one thing that has always bugged me too, but I was thinking about fixing that after the fsck wrappers. Thinking in hindsight, it might be easier to change ufs to ffs in the fsck wrapper right now, and then once the wrapper is stable worry about moving ufs to ffs. I would rather not have both happen right now, as doing ufs->ffs requires kernel changes and userland (mount) changes. Adrian -- Adrian Chadd Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message