From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:48:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:48:47 -0500 Received: from kleopatra.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.150]:60054 "EHLO kleopatra.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:48:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 04:48:34 +0100 From: David Weinehall To: "Michael D. Crawford" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FS callback routines Message-ID: <20010109044834.I4991@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <3A5A4958.CE11C79B@goingware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <3A5A4958.CE11C79B@goingware.com>; from crawford@goingware.com on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:12:24PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:12:24PM +0000, Michael D. Crawford wrote: [snipped a lot of sane opinions] > While Be, Inc.'s implementation is closed-source, the design of the > BFS (_not_ "befs" as it is sometimes called) is explained in Practical > File System Design with the Be File System by Dominic Giampolo, ISBN > 1-55860-497-9. Dominic has since left Be and I understand works at > Google now. The reason why BFS is often referred to as BeFS, is that there is a another file-system, far older than Be's filesystem AFAIK, called BFS; the SCO Unixware Boot File System, which is already supported in the Linux-kernel. Hence the misnomer BeFS. I think we should keep it that way to avoid confusion... After all, BeFS does indicate pretty well what file-system we mean, and other alternatives, such as be_bfs, or renaming SCO BFS to sco_bfs or similar feels awkward. /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/