Hi,
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 09:53:41PM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> The journalling layer for ext3 is not a filesystem by itself.
> It is generic journalling code. So, even if IBM did not have
> any jfs code, the name would be wrong.
Indeed, and the jfs layer will be renamed "jbd" at som
On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Dominik Kubla writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> [about IBM's JFS and ext3 both wanting to put code in fs/jfs]
>
> >> How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
> >> "journal" or "jfs
Dominik Kubla writes:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[about IBM's JFS and ext3 both wanting to put code in fs/jfs]
>> How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
>> "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
>
> Why? I'd rather renam
Dominik Kubla wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:33:10AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as
> > "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
> >
>
> Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it.
>
> You
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Michael Boman writes:
> > It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> > is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> > fs/ex
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 03:38:56PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> [..] while thats very
> sensible [..]
Not that it matters much but jfs means "journalling filesystem" and fs/jfs
isn't a filesystem in the ext3 patch, so it doesn't look that sensible to me.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Michael Boman writes:
> It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> fs/ext3, no?
Actually, if you would look in linux/fs, you will see that ext3 IS in
linux/fs/ext3. However, there is a second co
> It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
> is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be
> fs/ext3, no?
fs/jfs is the general purpose journalling layer. Of course while thats very
sensible it does clash with the ibm jfs. Maybe fs/journalling
Hi Gurus,
I was trying to build a super-big kernel with allot of Journaling File
System inside it to try out what is best for us to use. Now, I
encountered a problem..
It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that
is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ex
9 matches
Mail list logo
