From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tytso@thunk.org Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:35:42 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Andreas Bombe , Karel Zak , util-linux@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrius =?utf-8?B?xaB0aWtvbmFz?= , Curtis Gedak , pavel@ucw.cz Subject: Re: Linux & FAT32 label Message-ID: <20171105203542.jgupce2usbtjhbg2@thunk.org> References: <20171011214426.wa5endlb3kb4yhbv@pali> <20171012085658.iwrusvy4ay4s7hbb@ws.net.home> <20171012092113.2bsb3pzv6un4xahr@pali> <20171012101311.zfvg6edfvszlujom@ws.net.home> <20171012204931.tfd2bhmwu5b6rbpz@pali> <20171016011243.zurh5jhb2y6mczx7@amos.fritz.box> <20171105133929.7cscboxymmpkw634@pali> <20171105140745.ze4ttkazeczrqsy7@pali> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <20171105140745.ze4ttkazeczrqsy7@pali> List-ID: On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read > label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to > label stored in boot sector. And when fatlabel is changing label it > updates both locations. > > So tools which already uses fatlabel for get & set operations should not > be affected as setting new label makes boot and root in sync. > > New proposed behavior is: Try to read label from the root directory. If > not exist, then treat disk as without label. Why is it important to ignore the label from the boot sector? What is the situation where if there is not a label in the root directory, and there is a label in the boot sector, it is the Wrong Thing to return it? For that matter, aside for a diskette from DOS 3.x (where using the label from the boot sector *is* the right thing), why/when would we ever have a label in the boot sector and not in the root director? - Ted