I'll make another small patch, OK?
No, It make sense to make v3, because you have renamed the variables in
boot_sector on this patch.
OK.
BTW
I have a concern about fs_name.
The exfat specification says that this field is "EXFAT".
I think it's a important field for determining the
> > [snip]
> >> +/* EXFAT: Main and Backup Boot Sector (512 bytes) */ struct
> >> +boot_sector {
> >> + __u8jmp_boot[BOOTSEC_JUMP_BOOT_LEN];
> >> + __u8oem_name[BOOTSEC_OEM_NAME_LEN];
> >
> > According to the exFAT specification, fs_name and BOOTSEC_FS_NAME_LEN
> > look better.
>
>
[snip]
+/* EXFAT: Main and Backup Boot Sector (512 bytes) */ struct boot_sector
+{
+ __u8jmp_boot[BOOTSEC_JUMP_BOOT_LEN];
+ __u8oem_name[BOOTSEC_OEM_NAME_LEN];
According to the exFAT specification, fs_name and BOOTSEC_FS_NAME_LEN look
better.
Oops.
I sent v2 patches,
> Aggregate PBR related definitions and redefine as "boot_sector" to comply
> with the exFAT specification.
> And, rename variable names including 'pbr'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuhiro Kohada
> ---
> fs/exfat/exfat_fs.h | 2 +-
> fs/exfat/exfat_raw.h | 79
4 matches
Mail list logo