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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:09 EST