[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: iso9660 vs udf
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> > > On the other hand, this filesystem announces itself as UDF
> > > ("CD-RTOS" "CD-BRIDGE" "CDUDF File System - Adaptec Inc"),
> > > perhaps the kernel code should be more robust.
> Could you send the complete dmesg log, and what you mean with filesystem/
> kernel (incorrectly?) announcing it as UDF here ... I agree with Jan,
> this sounds like an issue with mount(8) to me.

You already got the relevant part of the dmesg log. Slightly more below.

I think the filesystem can be treated both as iso9660 and as udf,
at least that is what I seem to recall CD-BRIDGE means. Thus,
if the kernel cannot mount it as udf, I think it is a kernel flaw.
Given that kernel flaw, and the fact that mounting as iso9660 works,
mount(8) could work around the kernel problem by guessing iso9660.
But maybe we should first try to fix the kernel.


Failed mount:
UDF-fs INFO UDF (2004/29/09) Mounting volume 'Wisk1956-82', timestamp 2006/03/07 16:26 (1078)
udf: udf_read_inode(ino 547) failed !bh
UDF-fs: Error in udf_iget, block=1, partition=1

ISO 9660 Extensions: Microsoft Joliet Level 3
ISOFS: changing to secondary root

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: 2007-09-19 02:47    [W:0.077 / U:8.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site