Re: [PATCH] fat: Relax checks for sector size and media type

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>]

Pali Roh�r <pali.rohar@gmail.com> writes:

>> If there is real user to use that, I'm ok though (of course, need
>> serious tests). However, FAT would be for exchange data with other
>> devices, and there is "cluster per sector", and spec recommends sector
>> size == device sector size. So I suspect this format is not useful.
>
> I looked into OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD source code and there is no
> explicit upper limit for sector size. Just that sector size must be
> power of two.
>
> I have not did tests yet, but you are right that some testing should be
> done.
>
> As FAT operates with clusters and cluster size is defined by sector
> size, then sectors per cluster and sector size defines cluster size. And
> cluster size itself implies maximal size of FAT filesystem.
>
> So increasing sector size could be useful to create larger FAT32
> filesystems as current limit hit by sector size = 512 bytes.
>
> What do you think, which operating systems should be tested?

Again, I suspect those custom extension (can't read by some uefi or
windows) is not useful though.

Testing on kernel that has PAGE_SIZE >= 8192, and setting FAT
sector_size >= 8192.  After that, it would be safe to remove 4096
limitation.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>