Sancho Dauskardt <sda@bdit.de> writes:
> >I don't know anybody ported dmsdos to 2.4. The cvf stuff was removed
> >and many error handlings was fixed on 2.5.x. So, personally I think to
> >remove the cvf stuff and backport the some parts of fat driver to 2.4
> >is good.
>
> OK, the 100k diff between 2.4.21/fs/fat and 2.5.74 didn't really help
> me understand what's really changed (other than the cvf removal).
> Should I attempt to brute-force backport fs/fat/* in one large patch,
> or incrementally re-apply the 2.5 changes to 2.4 ?
I submited the some patch to marcelo several times about one year ago,
however, unfortunately those patches was ignored.
So, one large patch may not be applied. And incremental ways is more
safety, I think. (Probably, we need to address the difference of vfs
and umsdos)
> Or, as you write 'some parts', which parts would that be ?
I thought that the patches of only bug fix is probably easy to be
applied.
Thanks.
-- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:27 EST