Steve Simmons wrote: > <*chuckle*> So as a reducto ad absurdum argument, I can assume this > means there are no actual linux filesystem type numbers because it's > impossible to get agreement. As Descarte didn't say, "I think not." > </*chuckle> > > Since it clearly is possible and there's a minor shitload of them out > there, it must be doable. On the other hand, in spite of Marcus' > comments about asking the right question, it's not at all clear what the > right question is. Derricks comment above leads me to believe there's > history here that clearly isn't known to all. So before the rest of us > who think having a fs_type is a good thing go out and start spinning our > wheels, can some of you gatekeepers do a history dump for us?
The name space is fairly sparse and it does appear that file systems have simply selected values which have some meaning to the developers. The more recent values appear to be four byte character strings converted to numeric values. If you are in a position to get a new entry added to the Linux sys/statfs.h header file, please do so. I would suggest a value of AFS_SUPER_MAGIC 0x5346414F If you are successful, send a report to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and we will update the code. Thanks. Jeffrey Altman P.S. To be honest, I really don't think there would be any harm in just using this value. "OAFS" Who else would?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
