Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:53:54 -0500 | From | Miles Lott <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: BeOS FS support for 2.2.16 |
| |
Well, in looking at other kernel fs code, it seemed all the fs types were three letter abbreviations. If that is not a requirement, then yes beos is more natural. It is actually bfs, but SCO stuff conflicts there...
As for the 2.4 kernel version, I am hacking on it now. Mind you my major contribution to this this far is updating prior work.
David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Miles Lott wrote: > > > I took some time to update the code I found at > > http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008030/bfs/. This patche applies to a > > clean 2.2.16 kernel tree and adds support for bos (name changed to > > prevent conflict with bfs in 2.4). I hope to mod it for use in 2.4 as > > time permits. > > Wouldn't befs be a tad bit more natural? It is, after all, > the Be(os)FS we are talking about... :^) > > > It provides for read-only, however it will allow you to mount read > > write. Not certain that it > > won't do something nasty, so mount with -o ro. > > > > Basically, I fixed one typo and updated the nls stuff for long filename > > support. > > Nice work. Feel free to forwardport it to the v2.4test kernels, too... :^) > > /David > _ _ > // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ > // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // > \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
--
Miles Lott http://milosch.net Handspring Visor USB in Linux: http://milosch.net/visor
- 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/
|  |