ext3 vs. JFS file locations...
Hi Gurus,
I was trying to build a super-big kernel with allot of Journaling File System inside it to try out what is best for us to use. Now, I encountered a problem..
It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be fs/ext3, no?
Anyway, just my thought... It might already been discussed for what I know..
BTW.. If you find time to reply on this post, please put me on the Cc:
line - I am not on the mailinglist, generates too much mail I have no time to read...
Best regards
Michael Boman
PS
I was using 2.2.17 as base for my patches..
DS
Signature · 9 lines
Pager : out of order | On the contrary of what you may Mobile: (+65) 98 55 17 34 | think, your hacker is fully aware eMail : [email protected] | of your company's dress code. He ICQ : 5566009 | is fully aware of the fact that it Handle: proxy / 11 Alliance | doesn't help him to do his job. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines
It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be fs/ext3, no?
fs/jfs is the general purpose journalling layer. Of course while thats very sensible it does clash with the ibm jfs. Maybe fs/journalling is needed ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines · Michael Boman
It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be fs/ext3, no?
Actually, if you would look in linux/fs, you will see that ext3 IS in linux/fs/ext3. However, there is a second component to ext3, which is a generic block journalling layer which is called jfs. This journal layer is designed so that it isn't ext3 specific, so it would be _possible_ for other journalling filesystems to use it. Whether non-ext3 filesystems will actually use it is another question (actually the InterMezzo distributed filesystem uses the ext3-jfs functionality to do compound transactions on disk to ensure cluster coherency).
I think that Stephen at one time said he would change the name, but I guess he has not done so yet.
Cheers, Andreas
Signature · 7 lines
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/Quoted 2 lines · Alan Cox
[..] while thats very
sensible [..]
Not that it matters much but jfs means "journalling filesystem" and fs/jfs isn't a filesystem in the ext3 patch, so it doesn't look that sensible to me.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Followup to: <[email protected]> By author: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 3 lines · Michael Boman
It seems like both IBM's JFS and ext3 wants to use fs/jfs .. IMHO that is like asking for problem.. A more logic location for ext3 should be fs/ext3, no?
Actually, if you would look in linux/fs, you will see that ext3 IS in linux/fs/ext3. However, there is a second component to ext3, which is a generic block journalling layer which is called jfs. This journal layer is designed so that it isn't ext3 specific, so it would be _possible_ for other journalling filesystems to use it. Whether non-ext3 filesystems will actually use it is another question (actually the InterMezzo distributed filesystem uses the ext3-jfs functionality to do compound transactions on disk to ensure cluster coherency).
Quoted 3 lines
I think that Stephen at one time said he would change the name, but I guess he has not done so yet.
How about naming it something that doesn't end in -fs, such as "journal" or "jfsl" (Journaling Filesystem Layer?)
-hpa
Signature · 7 lines
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines · H. Peter Anvin
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.
Yours,
Dominik Kubla
Signature · 5 lines
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 1 line · Dominik Kubla
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]
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 16 lines · Albert D. Cahalan
Quoted 1 line · Dominik Kubla
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]
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 5 lines
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 [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi,
Quoted 4 lines · Albert D. Cahalan
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.
Indeed, and the jfs layer will be renamed "jbd" at some point (for "journaling block device" support).
Cheers,
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 12 lines · Dominik Kubla
Quoted 4 lines · H. Peter Anvin
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.
Yours,
Dominik Kubla
Because -fs is usually used by filesystems itself. Since the journaling layer doesn't really have a publically visible name, it's easy to change.
-hpa
Signature · 7 lines
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 2 lines · H. Peter Anvin
Because -fs is usually used by filesystems itself. Since the journaling layer doesn't really have a publically visible name, it's easy to change.
Oh i understood that fine. But VFS = "virtual filesystem switch" is also not a filesystem per se. And why give the generic term to an IBM "product"? So i say leave jfs for generic code and call the IBM jfs "ibmjfs".
Just my 2 cents,
Dominik Kubla
Signature · 5 lines
http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html - No Software Patents In Europe! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/