Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:33:58 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: rnordier@iafrica.com (Robert Nordier) Cc: terry@lambert.org, rnordier@iafrica.com, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dosfsck anyone? Message-ID: <199605070333.UAA22712@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605070223.EAA01170@eac.iafrica.com> from "Robert Nordier" at May 7, 96 04:23:11 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605070333.UAA22712>