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

[Julian Elischer]

John Baldwin wrote:

>On Friday 29 September 2006 12:19, Scott Long wrote:
>  
>
>>John Baldwin wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?.  And
>>don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch!  Ah, I love the
>>smell of fresh paint in the morning.  Smells like.... napalm.
>>    
>>
>
>Baby steps aren't hard. :)  Back when I first made rumblings about this sort 
>of thing we didn't have a sys/fs at all, but now we do and over time we've 
>actually moved most of our filesystems into it. :)
>
>  
>

there was a sys/miscfs which could have been used..

Matt Dillon took the oportunity to redo the tree in DF.
I wonder how that's working out?