Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Phillip Susi
Andries E. Brouwer wrote: Today I got a CD. MacOS does not mount it and Linux does not mount it without an explicit filesystemtype option. That is, # mount /dev/hdc /dir -t iso9660 works fine, but # mount /dev/hdc /dir mount: you didn't specify a filesystem type for /dev/h

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Andries E. Brouwer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:23:27PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:49:31PM +0200, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > > What goes wrong on the mount side is that when it hesitates between > > iso9660 and udf it decides for udf when seeing "NSR02". > > Maybe the heuristics in mount shou

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Karel Zak
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:49:31PM +0200, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > What goes wrong on the mount side is that when it hesitates between > iso9660 and udf it decides for udf when seeing "NSR02". > Maybe the heuristics in mount should be tuned. I'd like to see the CD image (or at least first 2Mb)

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Kay Sievers
On 9/19/07, Andries E. Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 08:05:32AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > I was actually asking for the logs explaining why you thought > > the _kernel_ incorrectly "announced" it as an UDF filesystem. > > No, the CDROM announces itself as an U

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What happened here is simply that in the absence of a "-t" option, > mount(8) defaulted (probably due to incorrect heuristics?) to UDF for > some reason, thereby obviously failing. I think the CD contains both ISO-9660 and UDF filesystems, but the latte

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-19 Thread Andries E. Brouwer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 08:05:32AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > I was actually asking for the logs explaining why you thought > the _kernel_ incorrectly "announced" it as an UDF filesystem. No, the CDROM announces itself as an UDF filesystem. > Hmm ... those "CD-RTOS", "CD-BRIDGE" and "CDUDF Fi

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-18 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:05:32 +0530 (IST) Satyam Sharma wrote: > Hi Andries, > > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > On the other hand, this filesystem announces itself as UDF > > > > > ("CD-RTOS"

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-18 Thread Satyam Sharma
Hi Andries, On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > > On the other hand, this filesystem announces itself as UDF > > > > ("CD-RTOS" "CD-BRIDGE" "CDUDF File System - Adaptec Inc"), > > > > perhaps the kernel code s

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-18 Thread Andries E. Brouwer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > On the other hand, this filesystem announces itself as UDF > > > ("CD-RTOS" "CD-BRIDGE" "CDUDF File System - Adaptec Inc"), > > > perhaps the kernel code should be more robust. > > Could you send the complete dmesg log, and what

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-18 Thread Satyam Sharma
Hi, On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Today I got a CD. MacOS does not mount it and Linux does not > > mount it without an explicit filesystemtype option. > > That is, > > # mount /dev/hdc /dir -t iso9660 > > works fine, but > > # mount /dev/hdc /dir > > mount: you didn't spe

Re: iso9660 vs udf

2007-09-18 Thread Jan Kara
> Today I got a CD. MacOS does not mount it and Linux does not > mount it without an explicit filesystemtype option. > That is, > # mount /dev/hdc /dir -t iso9660 > works fine, but > # mount /dev/hdc /dir > mount: you didn't specify a filesystem type for /dev/hdc >