Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 5 Nov 2000 10:49:14 +0000 (GMT) | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations... |
| |
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" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?) > > > > Why? I'd rather rename IBM's jfs to ibmjfs and be done with it. > > jfs == Journalling File System > > 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. > > IBM ought to change their name too, because the code they ported > can not mount AIX's current filesystems. An appropriate name > would be jfs2 or os2jfs, to distinguish it from the original. > If the AIX filesystem is ever implemented for Linux, then that > code can get the jfs name.
How about "Journalling Support Layer (JSL)"?
How different is AIX's JFS from OS/2's? Is there any possibility of the current code being able to handle AIX filesystems as well, or is it a different system entirely? If the latter, I'd agree with something like "os2jfs".
James.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |