Re: [Offtopic] FAT filesystem specs and behaviour

Jukka Tapani Santala (e75644@UWasa.Fi)
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:21:02 +0300 (EET DST)


On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> According to several sources, space _is_ invalid in MS- and IBM-DOS at
>> least. (IBM DOS Technical Reference, page 2-4; Using IBM DOS 4.0, page 23;
>> Microsoft MS-DOS 4.0 Users Guide and Reference, pages 16 thru 17;
>> Microsoft MS-DOS 5.0 Users Guide and Reference, pages 69 through 70) The
>> fact that some questionable(?) process lets you create them doesn't change
> The manuals say so, but the OS disagrees. COMMAND.COM doesn't like
> it, though. Note that you're reading the *user guide*, which isn't
> exactly a spec.

Note all of the books referenced also have the word "Reference" in them,
like "Technical Reference" etc. Also, I thought we were talking of the
times the command-interpreted (command.com) _was_ the OS at least to a
very high degree ;) But, well, there's the interrupts...

However, my references clearly say no spaces even with the interrupts.
Whether they are wrong, or whether it's just a bug in the implementation
to allow them I do not know, and don't have a machine around to see/test
it.

However, I see at least NT and Linux (patched with the patches this thread
started from, or not) deal happily with the spaces even in basic FAT
records. Altough "ren f f?f" -> "ff" for example. 'ren f "f f"' works.

-Donwulff

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/