Re: fatfs locking

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Yes.  The original idea was to provide the node pointer if the
> directory is locked, and NULL otherwise.

That sounds like an excellent approach.

> Yes, I think that is exactly what is required.  Now, hopefully you
> won't fall off the chair when you see how many interfaces are affected
> in the case of fatfs write support (as opposed to read support) ;)
> Anyway, you are making Marco very happy.

Nope, it's clear it requires a lot, because the flag basically has to
be propagated all the way up the call chain.  Unlike Roland, I've
never blanched at things that require "all callers changed" in the
ChangeLog.

Thomas