Re: FAT fs sanity check patch

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Maciej Zenczykowski <maze@xxxxxxx> writes:

> > Bad hack? Why? Do you know how mount operation is dangerous and it's
> > difficult for fatfs? Do you want to handle the any format as FAT?
> > 
> > This is completely unrelated to handling the cache.
> 
> How about not playing around with fat detection and instead implement a 
> force mount flag for FAT, which would ignore all (most?) detection errors.  
> Of course if errors occured later you'd end up with a R/O filesystem.  And if 
> you forced something that wasn't FAT, you'd be screwed... but that's to be 
> expected...

Yes, this flag would be one of candidates... However the scandisk/chkdisk
of windows fixed this bad format. Such a fsck may be best solution, I think.

Well, since the number of blacklists is three, I would like to wait
the more report before doing anything.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/