From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: FAT-filesystem EOF marker problem Date: 24 Sep 2002 12:36:16 -0700 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: References: <871y7lm90o.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01109 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:36:15 -0700 Received: from palladium.transmeta.com (palladium.transmeta.com [10.1.1.46]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OJaHA19450 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by palladium.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA02780 for linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:36:17 -0700 To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Followup to: By author: "Randy.Dunlap" In newsgroup: linux.dev.fs.devel > > Um, I guess we can say that Windows ME uses 0xfff always, at least > one version of it. Don't know about Windows 98 or 98 SE or 2000 > or XP etc. But since FAT entry 1 tells the FAT filesystem what > the EOF value is, it shouldn't matter if it changes from one > filesystem to another, should it? I don't see a problem with > using the value in fat_entry[1]. Just make sure that it's valid > (0xff8 - 0xfff for FAT12). > ALL versions of DOS since 1.0 uses all ones for the EOC mark. Under the principle "be liberal in what you receive, conservative in what you send" we should recognize anything >= -8 as EOC, but write -1. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt