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