> So the VFAT code is in a distinct module (if you use them), totally
> separate from the UMSDOS and MSDOS code.
>
> Doesn't it seem like the code to handle VFAT should be merged back one
> level into the generic FAT support? That way you pick MSDOS or UMSDOS,
> and the FAT driver decides whether or not the filesystem has VFAT. Then
> you can do UMSDOS stuff on top of VFAT.
I dont know if anyone cares, but I agree with this totally, I am using
win95 and linux side by side, and it seems that the vfat code could replace
the fat code... Or am I wrong?
Shouldn't vfat kind of be a superset of fat?
it fat cant read vfats long names, but vfat should read fats long names...
so can't the current structure:
msdos
/
vfs ---- fat - umsdos
\
vfat
be changed to:
msdos
/
vfs ---- vfat - umsdos
isnt this exactly what win95 did?
-Chuck
s253343@gettysburg.edu
(717)-337-8212