[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
>  > Agreed 100%. I'm also not sure it should be called "vfat" when operating
> > in this mode as it's not vfat any more - it needs a new name.
> If the code differed significantly between the two implementations I'd
> probably agree, but as the two are extremely close I think maintaining
> a separate filesystem isn't worth it.

It needs a different name to the user. If the new fs isn't vfat (which it
isn't) and doubly so if it can crash Windows XP at random on very rare
occasions then users need to know its different.

Imagine someone sticks a Linux written disk into a mission critical
windows server - I think they have a right to know and not accidentally
wander into a situation where they bring that box down ?

mount -o vfat should fail for this non-vfat.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-01 13:37    [W:0.119 / U:3.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site