> Correct - in FAT32, the root directory is just a group of data
> clusters. In FAT12 and FAT16, you specify the size of the root
> directory instead. However, the size is specified in entries,
> not sectors, so maybe you are right: FAT12 / FAT16 COULD be as
> EASY to transform as FAT32.
This depe
Hi Chris,
>>> NOTE: Transformation of sector sizes is easiest in FAT32.
>>> Other FAT sizes may take more effort.
> You're probably referring to the root directory alignment handling,
> which of course is not needed in FAT32 as its root directory is not
> in a specifically reserved area.
Corr
> Another additional note, as I went thinking about this a bit. Only
> cluster values are stored in the FS (think FAT contents, FSINFO, and
> "start cluster" fields of directory entries) apart from what is in the
> *BPB, so a runtime upwards sector size transformation (say, from 512 B
> to
>> NOTE: Transformation of sector sizes is easiest in FAT32.
>> Other FAT sizes may take more effort.
>
> I don't think so. Why would they? Cluster size stays the same, no
> FAT-related special handling (which would be more complicated for, say,
> FAT12) is necessary as far as I can tell.
Sorr
>> This doesn't belong on Freedos-user then.
>
> Maybe Czerno / Bertho is not on freedos-devel?
Then they should subscribe to it.
> Or maybe there is
> simply too little traffic on freedos-devel, so he preferred to
> give it a try on freedos-user... I am CCing -devel here,
I'm keeping -user as t
