On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:57:00AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > While not particularly part of wapbl itself, I would like to see its > callers (ie, lfs) be more modular!
lfs is not related to wapbl, or even (now) ufs. > Currently, ffs (whether built-in or modular) has to be built with OPTIONS > WAPBL enabled in order to use wapbl. And the ffs module has to "require" > the wapbl module. This is because there is allegedly-filesystem-independent wapbl code that was thought to maybe be reusable for additional block-journaling implementations, e.g. ext3. I have always had doubts about this and it hasn't panned out so far. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
