Re: ext3 vs. JFS file locations...

James Sutherland
2000-11-05T10:49:55Z

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> Dominik Kubla writes:
> > 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]
>
> >> 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.

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.