From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 6 20:44:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA06061 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 May 1996 20:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA06056 for ; Mon, 6 May 1996 20:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id UAA22712; Mon, 6 May 1996 20:33:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199605070333.UAA22712@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: dosfsck anyone? To: rnordier@iafrica.com (Robert Nordier) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:33:58 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, rnordier@iafrica.com, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199605070223.EAA01170@eac.iafrica.com> from "Robert Nordier" at May 7, 96 04:23:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > How will these anomolies be introduced? By (in violation of usage > > semantics) caching? [ ... ] > By "the chance of introducing ... anomalies" I really just meant that, > whereas FAT implies a nice convenient discrete set of 32-byte > directories entries, VFAT (assuming "cluster crossing" is legal) means > 'dosfsck' can't go blindly chopping up and relinking (to 'LOST.FND') > questionable clusters, if the chop in question is going to sever the LFN, > or the LFN to 8.3-name connection. (However, I'm probably > misinterpreting the question, as I can't tie in "caching" - however > loosely - with any of this.) I assumed that the problems being corrected would come from the BSD MSDOSFS crashing with cache data in core instead of on disk, etc.. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.