[lkml]   [1996]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Win95 partitions
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Erik Walthinsen (Omega) wrote:

> So the VFAT code is in a distinct module (if you use them), totally
> separate from the UMSDOS and MSDOS code.
> Doesn't it seem like the code to handle VFAT should be merged back one
> level into the generic FAT support? That way you pick MSDOS or UMSDOS,
> and the FAT driver decides whether or not the filesystem has VFAT. Then
> you can do UMSDOS stuff on top of VFAT.

I dont know if anyone cares, but I agree with this totally, I am using
win95 and linux side by side, and it seems that the vfat code could replace
the fat code... Or am I wrong?

Shouldn't vfat kind of be a superset of fat?
it fat cant read vfats long names, but vfat should read fats long names...

so can't the current structure:

vfs ---- fat - umsdos

be changed to:

vfs ---- vfat - umsdos

isnt this exactly what win95 did?


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.054 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site