[syslinux] [PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32

Pete Batard
2016-02-26T13:10:34Z

Hi Gene,

On 2016.02.26 11:49, Gene Cumm wrote:
> I think there may be another answer to this:
>
> 1) a tool to fix the broken FSs by "wasting" the high clusters of
the
> file system, a non-destructive correction.  As it stands they're
> effectively wasted already and might risk a user thinking the file
> system isn't full when in fact the FAT itself is.

I'm not exactly sure how that would work (how would you mark those
clusters as wasted when my understanding is that the FAT's can't provide
any knowledge about them in the first place?) and unless it is
automatically integrated and ran during the Syslinux installation, it
sounds quite inconvenient for users.

> 2) The recommendation to use the Syslinux installer's "-f"
flag until
> the individual file system is corrected with the above tool, assuming
> "-f" circumvents this check.  I've been tossing the idea
around that a
> single "-f" might not be the best answer and a longer option
> specifying a list of checks to skip might be more balanced, ie "-F
> minfatsize,othercheck".
>
> 3) Ensure that the Syslinux installers state which check failed to
> assist users in correcting their file system, regardless of if
"-f" is
> specified.  If "-f" is not specified, installation should fail
> completely (hopefully with 0 alterations).  If "-f" is specified
but
> not necessary (indicating a user/tool that isn't being cautious),
> consider throwing a warning while still allowing the install and
> returning a success to the caller of the installer.

Joining on what you advocate above, I think I'd indeed prefer an
installer that fails when -f isn't used, with an explicit message
stating why (maybe with a computation of the number of sectors that
cannot be addressed, so that users have a good idea of the wastage)
along with an indication that they can use '-f' use to bypass that
check, should they want to.

Since I brought this whole thing up, and provided this is the course of
action everybody agrees on, I *may* try to work on a patch that does
this... bearing in mind that, as you know, the last time I said I'd work
out some patches for Syslinux (this series), it took about 3 months
before I posted anything. ;)

Regards,

/Pete