Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:30:04 -0500 | From | Miles Lott <> | Subject | Re: PATCH: BeOS FS support for 2.2.16 |
| |
After some pondering, I guess befs is ok? Seems I got locked into thinking bfs, bos, fat in a circular manner. Thanks for righting me ;)
David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Miles Lott wrote: > > > 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... > > Ehrmm... > > Let's see (this is from the v2.4-test tree, not v2.2.xx): > > ntfs > hpfs > ext2(fs) > qnx4(fs) > ramfs > romfs > umsdos > vfat > sysv(fs) > coda > adfs > affs > cramfs > isofs > jffs > ncpfs > > Not to be picky, but I'd say there are more 4-letter abbrevations than > three letter abbr's. > > befs (not beos; the fs should be there to stress that it is a filesystem) > is a good name I think. beosfs might be a good name too. > > > 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. > > Well, it's nice to hear you're working on it. > > /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/
|  |