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
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 slow device, mount will
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> ---
>>
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 that Windows
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't update
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
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 driver,
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 is
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
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_clusters-for-fat32
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. And this
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:
# /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%CPU
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 of free
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 may report
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 calculate
the available
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 bad name
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 this list:
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 think the user
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
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*
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* the device
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 who
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 option if possible:
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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 the
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,
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 count of
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 have you
50 matches
Mail list logo
