> > Agreed 100%. I'm also not sure it should be called "vfat" when operating > > in this mode as it's not vfat any more - it needs a new name. > > If the code differed significantly between the two implementations I'd > probably agree, but as the two are extremely close I think maintaining > a separate filesystem isn't worth it. It needs a different name to the user. If the new fs isn't vfat (which it isn't) and doubly so if it can crash Windows XP at random on very rare occasions then users need to know its different. Imagine someone sticks a Linux written disk into a mission critical windows server - I think they have a right to know and not accidentally wander into a situation where they bring that box down ? mount -o vfat should fail for this non-vfat. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
