On Sunday 15 October 2017 08:59:01 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Based on results I would propose following unification: > > > ... > > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means > > there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector. > > > > --> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot > > sector. Windows XP even do not update boot sector, so label > > stored in boot sector is incorrect after any change done by > > Windows XP. > > > > But due to compatibility with older dosfslabel, which stores > > label only to boot sector, there is need for some fallback. Due > > to point 1. the best seems to be to process also erased label in > > root directory (marked with leading 0xE5) and fallback to boot > > sector only in case label in root directory is missing. > > > > What do you think about it? > > 4. seems dangerous. Assume we have "OLD" in boot sector and "0xe5-EW" in the > directory > entry. The label will change from <none> to "OLD" when the directory entry is > reused by > "FOO.TXT", right? That seems surprising / dangerous.
Hm... that is a good question what happen (I do not know). I think that current situation when Windows XP show different label as Linux is also _surprising_. Do you have a better idea what to do and how to handle this situation? -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
