Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] exfat: redefine PBR as boot_sector
To:     Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
Cc:     kohada.tetsuhiro@dc.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        mori.takahiro@ab.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        motai.hirotaka@aj.mitsubishielectric.co.jp,
        'Namjae Jeon' <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <CGME20200525115110epcas1p491bfb477b12825536e81e376f34c7a02@epcas1p4.samsung.com>
 <20200525115052.19243-1-kohada.t2@gmail.com>
 <040701d634b1$375a2a40$a60e7ec0$@samsung.com>
From:   Tetsuhiro Kohada <kohada.t2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48fe0abe-8b1c-bea2-820f-71ca141af072@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 21:27:35 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <040701d634b1$375a2a40$a60e7ec0$@samsung.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> [snip]
>> +/* EXFAT: Main and Backup Boot Sector (512 bytes) */ struct boot_sector
>> +{
>> +	__u8	jmp_boot[BOOTSEC_JUMP_BOOT_LEN];
>> +	__u8	oem_name[BOOTSEC_OEM_NAME_LEN];
> 
> According to the exFAT specification, fs_name and BOOTSEC_FS_NAME_LEN look
> better.

Oops.
I sent v2 patches, before I noticed this comment,

I'll make another small patch, OK?

BTW
I have a concern about fs_name.
The exfat specification says that this field is "EXFAT".

I think it's a important field for determining the filesystem.
However, in this patch, I gave up checking this field.
Because there is no similar check in FATFS.
Do you know why Linux FATFS does not check this filed?
And, what do you think of checking this field?

BR