Hi! > Based on results I would propose following unification: > ... > 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means > there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector. > > --> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot > sector. Windows XP even do not update boot sector, so label > stored in boot sector is incorrect after any change done by > Windows XP. > > But due to compatibility with older dosfslabel, which stores > label only to boot sector, there is need for some fallback. Due > to point 1. the best seems to be to process also erased label in > root directory (marked with leading 0xE5) and fallback to boot > sector only in case label in root directory is missing. > > What do you think about it? 4. seems dangerous. Assume we have "OLD" in boot sector and "0xe5-EW" in the directory entry. The label will change from <none> to "OLD" when the directory entry is reused by "FOO.TXT", right? That seems surprising / dangerous. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
