Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:21:38 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FAT32
In-Reply-To: <199901081029.LAA00542@juno.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990110132115.20678M-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> Hmm. What about FAT32 formatted JAZ disks (or some later variant
> exceeding 2GB)? Wouldn't the FAT32 detection code need to recheck if
> the disk was exchanged? (Resulting in: a removeable disk must be
> checked for each and every operation?)

If a removable disk can be formatted as FAT32, it will have to be
rechecked for each operation.

However, I believe that removable media is slow enough anyway, so an
extra call won't be so painful.  What do you think?

Btw, what happens if you issue a FAT32-related call on a FAT16 disk?
Maybe we could use the new functions unconditionally in some cases?