[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Info-mtools] Bug: mformat does not format FAT32 correctly
From: |
Alain Knaff |
Subject: |
Re: [Info-mtools] Bug: mformat does not format FAT32 correctly |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:42:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 |
On 2018-09-24 12:26, Pali Rohár wrote:
[...]
> It is correct version. I forgot that I put those messages on stdout.
> Sorry for that.
>
> Anyway, I thought that it would be useful message for end-user that
> autodetection of parameters did not work and that some calculation was
> done. So it print parameters which it then use.
>
> So do you think that those messages about CHS geometry should not be
> printed?
I think they should only be printed if/when an actual error occurs (...
or if mformat has been invoked with a "verbose" flag...).
It is also expected that more than one drive definition might need to be
tried, hence the idea of first "printing" error messages into a buffer,
and only actually outputting them once it is clear that *all* drive
definitions have failed.
==> so I say: ok with the messages, if it's an actual error, and if they
are handled like all the other messages (errmsg)
[...]
>> ... and that's where it should be capped, and not late in the game where
>> other code parts may already have used the initial "too high" setting.
>> The risk here is inconsistencies, where in some parts of the code assume
>> a sector size bigger than 4K, and others 4K. And another risk is that it
>> breaks those situations (2m floppies) where a bigger size than 4K _is_
>> acceptable.
>
> So... where in the code it should be? I looked at the code and I thought
> that correct place for BLKSSZGET is in get_block_geom().
Yes, indeed, that would be an appropriate place.
>
> ... Or when talking about 4K, do you mean check "Fs.sector_size > 4096"?
No, that's exactly what I *don't* want. I'd rather have a check for
used_dev.ssize <= 5
That way, if other code parts depend on used_dev.ssize, they get the
capped information too. I'd hate to end up with a disk specifying a
sector size of 16K in one place and actually using 4K in another place.
Also, 2m disks or other exotic floppy formats may have bigger "sectors"
legitimately.
> Because there are two different things, one is file system sector size
> and one block device sector size.
I'd prefer to keep them as consistent with each other as possible.
>
> If there are devices/systems which uses "Fs.sector_size > 4096", then
> that check should not be introduced.
There are.
>
> But I was told that such devices/systems do not exists and FAT sector
> size is maximally 4096.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alain
>>
>
Regards,
Alain