[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Q] FAT driver enhancement
    Jos Hulzink wrote:
    > How should the FAT driver know that the first FAT is bad if it doesn't
    > scan the FAT ? You don't want the second FAT to be used, you want the
    > mount to fail, and to fix the mess. Who tells you that the second
    > copy of the FAT is the correct one, and not the first ?

    Seems to me you would want a mount-time option to the FAT fs code to say
    "use FAT#<n>", defaulting to the first if no parm given. If that copy of
    the FAT has any problems, fail the mount.

    Then you'd want the fsck.fat to have a similar option, saying "use
    FAT#<n> for the check" - that way if the FATs are out of sync, you could
    do a dry run check on each FAT, and go with the one that seemed to be
    better. Perhaps even having the tool allow you to pick and choose if
    needed (although this would probably be better as a seperate tool, that
    allowed you to view a file given a selected FAT and copy it to a clean
    file system.)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.031 / U:29.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site