On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:57:00AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
 > While not particularly part of wapbl itself, I would like to see its
 > callers (ie, lfs) be more modular!

lfs is not related to wapbl, or even (now) ufs.

 > Currently, ffs (whether built-in or modular) has to be built with OPTIONS
 > WAPBL enabled in order to use wapbl.  And the ffs module has to "require"
 > the wapbl module.

This is because there is allegedly-filesystem-independent wapbl code
that was thought to maybe be reusable for additional block-journaling
implementations, e.g. ext3. I have always had doubts about this and it
hasn't panned out so far.

David A. Holland

Reply via email to