Am 12.11.2025 um 13:38 hat Richard W.M. Jones geschrieben: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:57:16AM +0200, Clément Chigot wrote: > > The main goal of this series is to introduce a new option "size" within > > the vvfat backend (patch 5). It allows more control over SD cards' size. > > The value for "Number of Heads" and "Sectors per track" are based on SD > > specifications Part 2. > > > > This series also includes minor patches: > > - patch 1 introduces another option to remove the Master Boot Record > > (this is mandatory for QNX) > > - patch 2-4 are minor improvements easing the introducing of "size" > > option > > > > This was tested on with a aarch64-linux kernel taken from > > functional/aarch64/test-virt and on aarch64-qnx over raspi4b with a > > workaround, not included here (the SD bus must be associated to the EMMC2 > > port instead of through GPIOs). > > > > Clément Chigot (5): > > vvfat: introduce no-mbr option > > vvfat: move fat_type check prior to size setup > > vvfat: add a define for SECTOR_SIZE > > vvfat: move size parameters within driver structure > > vvfat: add support for "size" options > > > > block/vvfat.c | 279 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 213 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > (Thanks Markus for bringing this thread up) > > I just wanted to say that a long time ago I wrote an nbdkit plugin > that was intended as a more sane replacement for vfat.
What does it do differently from vvfat? For the read-only part, I thought that vvfat wasn't too bad. Write support is where all the bugs are hiding. But if you have good input, maybe vvfat could be improved. > Since then several more nbdkit plugins have been added. They support > arbitrary sizes already. The first one is the most direct replacement > for vvfat (although it doesn't support writes to the backing > directory, because that feature is insane). The scenario we discussed here was explicitly read-write. Kevin
