On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:03:09PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> Yes, I realize that's what they're for.  However, it seems to me that  
> they just don't belong there.  It's already screwy having the fields  
> change meanings for FFS vs LFS.

That is like saying that deriving multiple classes from a base class
is "screwy" because the implementation stores different information
at the same offset in the objects storage.

Now, there may be other pressing reasons why we want to give up this feature.
However, I haven't seen them yet.

--chris