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
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 some
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
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 "jfsl"
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
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.
>
>
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.
Yours,
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 rename
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
> >
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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/ext3, no?
17 matches
Mail list logo
