#	@(#)TODO	5.3 (Berkeley) 01/18/92

TODO:  =======================

Keith:
	Fix i_block increment for indirect blocks.
	If the file system is tar'd, extracted on top of another LFS, the
		IFILE ain't worth diddly.  Is the cleaner writing the IFILE?
		If not, let's make it read-only.
	Delete unnecessary source from utils in main-line source tree.
	Make sure that we're counting meta blocks in the inode i_block count.
	Overlap the version and nextfree fields in the IFILE
	Talk to Kirk about vinvalbuf:
		Why writing blocks that are no longer useful?
		Are the semantics of close such that blocks have to be flushed?
		How specify in the buf chain the blocks that don't need
		to be written?  (Different numbering of indirect blocks.)

Margo:
	Unmount; not doing a bgetvp (VHOLD) in lfs_newbuf call.
	Document in the README file where the checkpoint information is
		on disk.
	Variable block sizes (Margo/Keith).
	Switch the byte accounting to sector accounting.
	Check lfs.h and make sure that the #defines/structures are all
		actually needed.
	Add a check in lfs_segment.c so that if the segment is empty,
		we don't write it.  (Margo, do you remember what this
		meant?  TK)
	Need to keep vnode v_numoutput up to date for pending writes?

Carl:
	lfsck:	If delete a file that's being executed, the version number
		isn't updated, and lfsck has to figure this out; case is			the same as if have an inode that no directory references,
		so the file should be reattached into lost+found.
	USENIX paper (Carl/Margo).
	Investigate: clustering of reads (if blocks in the segment are ordered,
		should read them all) and writes (McVoy paper).
	Investigate: should the access time be part of the IFILE:
		pro: theoretically, saves disk writes
		con: cacheing inodes should obviate this advantage
		     the IFILE is already humongous
	Cleaner.
	Recovery/fsck.
	Port to OSF/1 (Carl/Keith).
	Currently there's no notion of write error checking.
		+ Failed data/inode writes should be rescheduled (kernel level
		  bad blocking).
		+ Failed superblock writes should cause selection of new
		  superblock for checkpointing.

FUTURE FANTASIES: ============

+ unrm
	- versioning
+ transactions
+ extended cleaner policies
	- hot/cold data, data placement

==============================
Problem with the concept of multiple buffer headers referencing the segment:
Positives:
	Don't lock down 1 segment per file system of physical memory.
	Don't copy from buffers to segment memory.
	Don't tie down the bus to transfer 1M.
	Works on controllers supporting less than large transfers.
	Disk can start writing immediately instead of waiting 1/2 rotation
	    and the full transfer.
Negatives:
	Have to do segment write then segment summary write, since the latter
	is what verifies that the segment is okay.  (Is there another way
	to do this?)
==============================

We don't plan on doing the DIROP log until we try to do roll-forward.
This is part of what happens if random blocks get trashed and we try to
recover, i.e. the same information that DIROP tries to provided is
required for general recovery.  I believe that we're going to need an
fsck-like tool that resolves the disk (possibly a combination of
resolution, checkpoints and checksums).  The problem is that the current
implementation does not handle the destruction of, for example, the root
inode.
==============================

The algorithm for selecting the disk addresses of the super-blocks
has to be available to the user program which checks the file system.

(Currently in newfs, becomes a common subroutine.)