Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:51:45 +0300 (EEST) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/85503: panic: wrong dirclust using msdosfs in RELENG_6 Message-ID: <20050903194401.E1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20050903190632.S1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> References: <20050901183311.D62325@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20050902205456.S2885@delplex.bde.org> <20050903190632.S1788@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote: >> I think I said that the inode number in msdosfs should be the cluster >> number of the first cluster in the file. This would be broken by >> variable-sized clusters (unlikely, and even less useful) or new file >> types like symlinks (useful and not so unlikely -- FreeBSD could add >> them as an extension). > > Yes, I agree with this. While this fs has being called FAT32, > it's cluster number will fit in 32-bit word. Ups, how about empty files? They haven't any allocated clusters, have they? So, alas, we can't go this route. > I think interoperability with other OSes is also important, and if, e.g. > Microsoft will invent FAT64, we will return to this topic ;) Or, more realistically, NTFS will support >4Gfiles/fs... I won't even be surprised if they already do. Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050903194401.E1788>