23 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
23 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
|
1. Investiate making ISOFS another UFS shared filesystem (ala FFS/MFS/LFS).
|
||
|
|
Since it was modelled after the inode code, we might be able to merge
|
||
|
|
them back. It looks like a seperate (but very similar) lookup routine
|
||
|
|
will be needed due to the associated file stuff.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. Make filesystem exportable. This comes for free if stacked with UFS.
|
||
|
|
Otherwise, the ufs_export routines need to be elevated to vfs_* routines.
|
||
|
|
[ DONE - hibler ]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. If it can't be merged with UFS, at least get them in sync. For example,
|
||
|
|
it could use the same style hashing routines as in ufs/ufs_ihash.c
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
4. It would be nice to be able to use the vfs_cluster code.
|
||
|
|
Unfortunately, if the logical block size is smaller than the page size,
|
||
|
|
it won't work. Also, if throughtput is relatively constant for any
|
||
|
|
block size (as it is for the HP drive--150kbs) then clustering may not
|
||
|
|
buy much (or may even hurt when vfs_cluster comes up with a large sync
|
||
|
|
cluster).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
5. Seems like there should be a "notrans" or some such mount option to show
|
||
|
|
filenames as they really are without lower-casing, stripping of version
|
||
|
|
numbers, etc. Does this make sense?
|