isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?

[John Baldwin]

On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote:
> Eric Anderson wrote:
> > I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what 
> > seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660.  Is there any reason not to move it? 
> >    Curious mostly..
> > 
> > Eric
> > 
> > 
> 
> Inertia, mostly.  And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs?  Let the
> bi-yearly debate begin.....
> 
> Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up
> fairly regularly.  We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though,
> so thanks for giving it a kickstart.

We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past.  Only 
cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level.  I'd still say leave nfs and ufs 
alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra isofs 
directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.

-- 
John Baldwin