Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> If there is real user to use that, I'm ok though (of course, need >> serious tests). However, FAT would be for exchange data with other >> devices, and there is "cluster per sector", and spec recommends sector >> size == device sector size. So I suspect this format is not useful. > > I looked into OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD source code and there is no > explicit upper limit for sector size. Just that sector size must be > power of two. > > I have not did tests yet, but you are right that some testing should be > done. > > As FAT operates with clusters and cluster size is defined by sector > size, then sectors per cluster and sector size defines cluster size. And > cluster size itself implies maximal size of FAT filesystem. > > So increasing sector size could be useful to create larger FAT32 > filesystems as current limit hit by sector size = 512 bytes. > > What do you think, which operating systems should be tested? Again, I suspect those custom extension (can't read by some uefi or windows) is not useful though. Testing on kernel that has PAGE_SIZE >= 8192, and setting FAT sector_size >= 8192. After that, it would be safe to remove 4096 limitation. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
