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