Hello,

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> To me, another consideration is familiarity with Btrfs for those who’ll
>> touch the code: to someone not familiar with it, the code may be viewed
>> as “read-only” because it says “btrfs”.  Whereas if it clearly states
>> that it’s just about prepending a directory name or similar, it’s easy
>> to reason about it.
>
> Agreed, this is where I was going to with my comment on ZFS.
> Maybe the "btrfs" part of the symbols can be left out to make it more
> general and understandable.

I've adapted with the naming suggested earlier by Ludovic.  Does the
patch below fit the bill?

Thanks,

Maxim