Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Previous message: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• In reply to: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Next in thread: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Reply: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> Just a suggestion :
>
> Does the FAT32 code in rockbox update the FAT entries in each FAT
> in a FAT32
> partition ? Windows may be very sensitive about the integrity of FATs. If
> the FAT32 partition has the FAT mirroring flag on, you must update as many
> FAT entries as there are FATs in a FAT32 partition when
> creating/truncating
> a file. Or do you force the FAT mirroring flag to be off (surely the best
> solution for embedded application since you would only need to update the
> current FAT instead of all) ?

on the other side, embedded means "running on batteries", not really safe,
and so one.
Right ?

it would be then i good idea to use fat mirroring in order to by on a safe
side. what do you think ?

henri

• Next message: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Previous message: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• In reply to: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Next in thread: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Reply: Christophe Avoinne: "Re: Recording woes (in detail)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]