On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
>
> Current behavior of the last blkid and fatlabel tools is: Try to read
> label from the root directory. If it does not exist, then fallback to
> label stored in boot sector. And when fatlabel is changing label it
> updates both locations.
>
> So tools which already uses fatlabel for get & set operations should not
> be affected as setting new label makes boot and root in sync.
>
> New proposed behavior is: Try to read label from the root directory. If
> not exist, then treat disk as without label.
Why is it important to ignore the label from the boot sector? What is
the situation where if there is not a label in the root directory, and
there is a label in the boot sector, it is the Wrong Thing to return it?
For that matter, aside for a diskette from DOS 3.x (where using the
label from the boot sector *is* the right thing), why/when would we
ever have a label in the boot sector and not in the root director?
- Ted
--
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
