On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:42:29AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Ren? Scharfe <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > It has been impossible to set the option 'atari' of the MSDOS filesystem
> > for several years. Since nobody seems to have missed it, let's remove
> > its remains.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Looks good to me. Thanks.
>
> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
postponed, but it seems to compile.
--
Joseph Fannin
[email protected]
Joseph Fannin <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:42:29AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> Ren? Scharfe <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > It has been impossible to set the option 'atari' of the MSDOS filesystem
>> > for several years. Since nobody seems to have missed it, let's remove
>> > its remains.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>>
>> Looks good to me. Thanks.
>>
>> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
>
> Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
> to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
> postponed, but it seems to compile.
I see. Although I don't know the patch, I'd like to add this part to
Geert's patch if possible. And when the patch can be posted, we can
re-add this part again.
Geert, what do you think?
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Joseph Fannin <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:42:29AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> >> Ren? Scharfe <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > It has been impossible to set the option 'atari' of the MSDOS filesystem
> >> > for several years. Since nobody seems to have missed it, let's remove
> >> > its remains.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <[email protected]>
> >> > ---
> >>
> >> Looks good to me. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
> >
> > Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
> > to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
> > postponed, but it seems to compile.
>
> I see. Although I don't know the patch, I'd like to add this part to
> Geert's patch if possible. And when the patch can be posted, we can
> re-add this part again.
>
> Geert, what do you think?
It's in POSTPONED state because nobody speaks up for/against it.
Personally, I don't know how much it is (still) needed...
But a few years ago somebody contacted me that he used it succesfully
on PA-RISC and i386 ;-)
BTW, the patch is
http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-patches-2.6/POSTPONED/134-atari-fat.diff
Atari people, I think now is the time to let it live or die...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
>>> to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
>>> postponed, but it seems to compile.
>> I see. Although I don't know the patch, I'd like to add this part to
>> Geert's patch if possible. And when the patch can be posted, we can
>> re-add this part again.
>>
>> Geert, what do you think?
>
> It's in POSTPONED state because nobody speaks up for/against it.
> Personally, I don't know how much it is (still) needed...
> But a few years ago somebody contacted me that he used it succesfully
> on PA-RISC and i386 ;-)
>
> BTW, the patch is
> http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-patches-2.6/POSTPONED/134-atari-fat.diff
>
> Atari people, I think now is the time to let it live or die...
The patch looks good, how can I let it live?
Petr
Petr Stehlik <[email protected]> writes:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
>>>> to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
>>>> postponed, but it seems to compile.
>>> I see. Although I don't know the patch, I'd like to add this part to
>>> Geert's patch if possible. And when the patch can be posted, we can
>>> re-add this part again.
>>>
>>> Geert, what do you think?
>>
>> It's in POSTPONED state because nobody speaks up for/against it.
>> Personally, I don't know how much it is (still) needed...
>> But a few years ago somebody contacted me that he used it succesfully
>> on PA-RISC and i386 ;-)
>>
>> BTW, the patch is
>> http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-patches-2.6/POSTPONED/134-atari-fat.diff
>>
>> Atari people, I think now is the time to let it live or die...
>
> The patch looks good, how can I let it live?
Could you test whether it works well? If it works fine, I'll merge and
clean it up. If it doesn't work, please fix it.
BTW,
+ if (sbi->fat_bits != 32 && total_clusters+2 > sbi->
+ fat_length*SECTOR_SIZE*8/sbi->fat_bits)
+ sbi->fat_bits = 12;
SECTOR_SIZE should be sb->s_blocksize? Or Atari doesn't support the
sector size other than 512 bytes?
Thanks.
--
OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]>
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Petr Stehlik <[email protected]> writes:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>> Geert Uytterhoeven has a patch in his POSTPONED queue that is supposed
> >>>> to fix Atari FAT. I can't speak to whether it works or why it's
> >>>> postponed, but it seems to compile.
> >>> I see. Although I don't know the patch, I'd like to add this part to
> >>> Geert's patch if possible. And when the patch can be posted, we can
> >>> re-add this part again.
> >>>
> >>> Geert, what do you think?
> >>
> >> It's in POSTPONED state because nobody speaks up for/against it.
> >> Personally, I don't know how much it is (still) needed...
> >> But a few years ago somebody contacted me that he used it succesfully
> >> on PA-RISC and i386 ;-)
> >>
> >> BTW, the patch is
> >> http://linux-m68k-cvs.ubb.ca/~geert/linux-m68k-patches-2.6/POSTPONED/134-atari-fat.diff
> >>
> >> Atari people, I think now is the time to let it live or die...
> >
> > The patch looks good, how can I let it live?
>
> Could you test whether it works well? If it works fine, I'll merge and
> clean it up. If it doesn't work, please fix it.
Petr, as there has been no further response anymore, it went into Linus' tree:
commit 7557bc66be629d19a402e752673708bfbb8b5e86
Author: Rene Scharfe <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Jul 25 01:46:45 2008 -0700
msdos fs: remove unsettable atari option
It has been impossible to set the option 'atari' of the MSDOS filesystem
for several years. Since nobody seems to have missed it, let's remove its
remains.
I'm inclined to drop it, if nobody seems to really care...
> BTW,
>
> + if (sbi->fat_bits != 32 && total_clusters+2 > sbi->
> + fat_length*SECTOR_SIZE*8/sbi->fat_bits)
> + sbi->fat_bits = 12;
>
> SECTOR_SIZE should be sb->s_blocksize? Or Atari doesn't support the
> sector size other than 512 bytes?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Geert Uytterhoeven píše v So 26. 07. 2008 v 17:28 +0200:
> > > The patch looks good, how can I let it live?
> >
> > Could you test whether it works well? If it works fine, I'll merge and
> > clean it up. If it doesn't work, please fix it.
>
> Petr, as there has been no further response anymore, it went into Linus' tree:
I know I should have checked that but I have been so overloaded at my
regular job that I couldn't do anything with my FOSS projects or Atari,
sorry.
> I'm inclined to drop it, if nobody seems to really care...
I can't care currently so feel free to drop it.
> > BTW,
> >
> > + if (sbi->fat_bits != 32 && total_clusters+2 > sbi->
> > + fat_length*SECTOR_SIZE*8/sbi->fat_bits)
> > + sbi->fat_bits = 12;
> >
> > SECTOR_SIZE should be sb->s_blocksize? Or Atari doesn't support the
> > sector size other than 512 bytes?
I haven't seen floppies with > 512 sectors. Atari partitioned harddisks
use much larger sectors (up to 32 kB), of course.
Petr