Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:22:39 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: terry@lambert.org, rnordier@iafrica.com, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: dosfsck anyone? Message-ID: <199605070122.SAA22485@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605070109.KAA17620@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at May 7, 96 10:39:20 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 1) There is a limit on the number of entries in "/" on DOS FS's > > that isn't enforced on subdirectories. > > > > a) If you don't use "lost+found", you risk exceeding > > this limit. > > I don't think _not_ using it is an option. Works not having one under DOS... > > b) If you do use "lost+found", but it does not > > preexist, AND the limit has already been reached, > > you will not be able to create it (LOST.FND?). > > In which case the user gets a message > "The root directory is full, filesystem repairs cannot proceed" > and they're SOL. Especially if the Root is the dir. I liked the idea of handling crosslinks by deconstruction rather than lost+found. > > 2) "." and ".." are artifacts of the search interface, not > > artifacts of directory structure contents in a FAT/VFAT/VFAT32 > > file system. > > Dig out a sector editor and have a look before you try that one again. > Here's a tip : > > 0036a00: 2e 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 00 00 00 00 . ..... > 0036a10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f3 7e 2b 1f 02 00 00 00 00 00 .......~+....... > 0036a20: 2e 2e 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 00 00 00 00 .. ..... > 0036a30: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f3 7e 2b 1f 00 00 00 00 00 00 .......~+....... > 0036a40: 41 54 54 52 49 42 20 20 45 58 45 20 00 00 00 00 ATTRIB EXE .... > 0036a50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 c0 32 bf 1c 14 00 c8 2b 00 00 .......2.....+.. > 0036a60: 43 48 4b 44 53 4b 20 20 45 58 45 20 00 00 00 00 CHKDSK EXE .... > 0036a70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 c0 32 bf 1c 16 00 d1 2f 00 00 .......2...../.. Sorry; I just got off a project doing a network redirector for Win95, and they were all faked. Shouldn't have assumed. 8-(. What about ".." in "/"? > > How will these anomolies be introduced? By (in violation of usage > > semantics) caching? > > No. By the potential operation of the 'dosfsck' program, as stated in > the preceeding paragraph. How does a cross-link get created is what I was asking...? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605070122.SAA22485>