Carlos Konstanski on 28 Feb 2005 00:35:35 -0000 |
Got that patch for disabling fsck in the HFS filesystem driver. Looks pretty basic. The file is /usr/src/linux/fs/hfsplus/super.c : 251,253c251,254 < "running fsck.hfsplus is recommended. leaving read-only.\n"); < sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; < *flags |= MS_RDONLY; --- > "running fsck.hfsplus is recommended. Not mounting read-only because there is no way to check the filesystem." > "\n"); > // sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; > // *flags |= MS_RDONLY; 255,257c256,258 < printk("HFS+-fs: Filesystem is marked locked, leaving read-only.\n"); < sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; < *flags |= MS_RDONLY; --- > printk("HFS+-fs: Filesystem is marked locked, be careful when making changes..\n"); > // sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; > // *flags |= MS_RDONLY; 337,338c338,339 < "running fsck.hfsplus is recommended. mounting read-only.\n"); < sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; --- > "running fsck.hfsplus is recommended. Not mounting read-only.\n"); > // sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; 341,342c342,343 < printk("HFS+-fs: Filesystem is marked locked, mounting read-only.\n"); < sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; --- > printk("HFS+-fs: Filesystem is marked locked, be careful when making changes..\n"); > // sb->s_flags |= MS_RDONLY; Looks like he changed a few messages to the user, and commented out any place in the code where the sb->s_flags flag gets masked with MS_RDONLY. My guess is that write functions in the API will not perform a write if this flag is set. By commenting out all the places where this flag could get set, he avoids the problem of write functions refusing to write. A hack? Sure, but hopefully its useful lifespan will be short. All we need is an fsck.hfsplus program. On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:49:58 -0500 > From: Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman@lightlink.com> > Reply-To: Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List > <plug@lists.phillylinux.org> > To: Philadelphia Linux User's Group Discussion List > <plug@lists.phillylinux.org> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] OSX "middleware"? > > Hi: > > * William H. Magill <magill@mcgillsociety.org> [2005-02-24 13:46:23 -0500]: >> On 24 Feb, 2005, at 09:26, Art Alexion wrote: >>> Carlos Konstanski wrote: >>>> Yes, gtkpod will get tunes on and off your iPod. I will get that HFS >>>> patch soon. And you can always format the iPod as FAT32 if you wish, >>>> which will circumvent all filesystem issues. This is what Windows >>>> (pardon my French) does to iPods. >>>> >>> Why does Apple's flagship product us a microsoft file system?? >> >> The iPod isn't Apple's flagship product, only its most popular one -- >> there is a difference. >> >> The iPod uses an operating system purchased from a third party (if you >> are interested, it is, or at least the first generation OS was, written >> in a dialect of SNOBOL!). >> >> As was pointed out -- "embedded systems" are a whole different kettle >> of fish. Many things can be done because the product has a very >> specific and restricted set of things which it is required to do. >> Consequently there are many things which an "embedded system" can do to >> maximize various aspects of its operation, from OS footprint to FS >> optimization ... and, even with today's "huge" chips and such, "small" >> is still the name of the game for "embedded systems," simply because >> "bigger" directly translates to "more expensive" at the bottom line. > > Small isn't always the last consideration though. FAT can be a very > bad choice of filesystem for a compact-flash or EEPROM type device. > The problem is that the FAT filesystem writes certain parts of the > device more often than others, which can cause the device to wear out > prematurely. There are F/OSS filesystems that support "wear leveling", > [1] so you may wonder why you never see a digital camera using those > instead... well, that would force the Windows users to install a new > filesystem driver. > > I.e. (again) a worse choice wins based on market-share. > > [1] http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4678 > > Regards, > > -- > Mark M. Hoffman > mhoffman@lightlink.com > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|