Hi Ogawa :)
* OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It would add the limitation to following simple usage,
> >>
> >># mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 /mnt
> >> # cp -a * /mnt
> >> # umount
> >>
> >> if /dev/sda1 was the large and s
DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It would add the limitation to following simple usage,
>>
>> # mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 /mnt
>> # cp -a * /mnt
>> # umount
>>
>> if /dev/sda1 was the large and slow device, "mount" will need several
>> minutes to counts free clusters. I
Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > - usefree is a bad name (I'd suggest recalc_free instead),
>>
>> Is it about nofree option?
>
> Yes. I think recalc_free is way more descriptive.
Recalc is already default on current patch.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Windows _does_ care*, it will pretend the disk to be full.
>
> Did you test on 2000 or XP? (e.g. write 0 to free_clusters, then
> create new file.)
That was back when I still used W98.
> > - usefree is a ba
Hi Bodo :)
* Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
>
> >>> So the last free sector count is also stored. When mounting this
> >>> filesystem you don't need to walk through the whole FAT to calcula
Hi Ogawa :)
* OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The problem is that if a program writes a file onto the filesystem
> > without using statfs first to check for free space, the free_clusters
> > entry won't have the real value and the driver ma
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Probably it's stupid to update the free clusters count at mount time
>> (sorry if so...) but it looks like a good idea to me. And of course, I
>> don't mean to update the value _on disk_, but the kernel's idea
Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # /usr/bin/time sh -c "dd if=/dev/hda2 bs=$((77834925/64)) count=4 | perl -e
> '"'use POSIX;while (sysread STDIN,$x,4) {$n++ if $x eq "\0\0\0\0"} print
> $n*32,"\n"'\'
> 4+0 records in
> 4+0 records out
> 13954720
> 0.76user 0.60system 0:01.95elapsed 69%CP
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
>>> So the last free sector count is also stored. When mounting this
>>> filesystem you don't need to walk through the whole FAT to calculate
>>> the available space, you can use this "cached" value instead
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> diff -puN
>> Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt~fat_dont-use_free_clusters-for-fat32
>> Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt
>> ---
>> linux-2.6/Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt~fat_dont-use_free_cluste
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> - You forgot to update Documentation/
>
> Sure. If you can post the patch, it'll be great.
Updated patch is here.
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It seems that the recent Windows changed specification, and it's
undocumented. Windows
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> diff -puN
> Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt~fat_dont-use_free_clusters-for-fat32
> Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt
> ---
> linux-2.6/Documentation/filesystems/vfat.txt~fat_dont-use_free_clusters-for-fat32
> 2007-04-22 23:06:21.0 +0900
Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows _does_ care*, it will pretend the disk to be full.
Did you test on 2000 or XP? (e.g. write 0 to free_clusters, then
create new file.)
> - usefree is a bad name (I'd suggest recalc_free instead),
Is it about nofree option?
> and your description
DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that if a program writes a file onto the filesystem
> without using statfs first to check for free space, the free_clusters
> entry won't have the real value and the driver may report "disk full" (I
> haven't read the code for the vfat driv
Hi,
On Sunday 22 April 2007 00:42, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Yes. It seems that Windows does not update the ->free_clusters correctly.
> Probably, I think the option is good for now. What do you think about
> an attached patch?
Please don't ask me, because I'm not a filesystem expert. Sorry. My sug
Hi Ogawa (and Andrew) :)
* OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there some way in which we can work out what's happened and fix
> > it up?
>
> It seems that the recent Windows changed specification, and it's
> undocumented. Windows doesn
Hi Ogawa :)
* OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A mount option to force walking the FAT and getting the real
> > info could be interesting. That way, it will be only done for
> > certain devices (small disks, for example).
>
> Yes. It seems
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:42:22 +0900 OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Recent Windows doesn't update ->free_clusters correctly. The "nofree"
>> option ignores the ->free_clusters stored on FSINFO.
>
> It'd be better to avoid the new mount opti
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:42:22 +0900 OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recent Windows doesn't update ->free_clusters correctly. The "nofree"
> option ignores the ->free_clusters stored on FSINFO.
It'd be better to avoid the new mount option if possible: fatfs is used by
a *lot* of people
DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
>> On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:57, DervishD wrote:
>> > I have a portable device with a FAT32 formatted hard disk in it, and
>> > everytime I delete a file in the device *using the device itself to
>> > do it* th
Hi Boaz :)
* Boaz Harrosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> > Apart from not using the device itself to delete files (and probably
> > not using Windows for that, either) and to run fsck.vfat now and
> > then, is anything I can do to avoid this problem?
> >
> Not that I know how to fix it. But ha
Hi Juergen :)
* Juergen Beisert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:57, DervishD wrote:
> > I have a portable device with a FAT32 formatted hard disk in it, and
> > everytime I delete a file in the device *using the device itself to
> > do it* the device increases its co
On Thursday 19 April 2007 10:57, DervishD wrote:
> I have a portable device with a FAT32 formatted hard disk in it, and
> everytime I delete a file in the device *using the device itself to do
> it* the device increases its count of free space and if I plug the
> device in a Windows system, Win
DervishD wrote:
> Hi all :)
>
> I have a portable device with a FAT32 formatted hard disk in it, and
> everytime I delete a file in the device *using the device itself to do
> it* the device increases its count of free space and if I plug the
> device in a Windows system, Windows agrees on
Hi all :)
I have a portable device with a FAT32 formatted hard disk in it, and
everytime I delete a file in the device *using the device itself to do
it* the device increases its count of free space and if I plug the
device in a Windows system, Windows agrees on the free space. Linux
doesn
25 matches
Mail list logo
