On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 08:50:35PM -0500, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote: > > > > As opposed to ffs? What's your point? > > > > > > I think he meant that it's most likely to be used in a production > > > environment. > > > > And ffs isn't? I still don't get the point. > > Didn't you just say that ffs is already fixed?
Yes, I did. It sounded like he was scolding me for wasting time on ffs when tmpfs is critical, which doesn't make sense. > If so, then it seems to me like fixing tmpfs might be a better next > step than fixing lfs (unless there's something about lfs that makes > it particular easy to fix). as I wrote in the original mail, fixing ffs also fixes lfs, because they (mostly) share ufs_rename. I guess the conclusion I should draw from these responses is that more than one person misunderstood that, ergo it was my fault for being unclear. :-/ -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org