Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:56:21 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FAT32 step 2
In-Reply-To: <199901311616.RAA10584@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990131184443.29374B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> +On FAT32 file systems file size bigger than ~2^31 is supported. Note
> +that WINDOWS 98 has a bug which only let you create this big files if
                                        ^^^            ^^^^
These should be "lets" and "these", respectively.  (There are more places 
with these typos.)

> +This function can be hooked by the @xref{File System Extensions}. If
> +you don't want this you should use @xref{_dos_creat} or
> +@xref{_dos_creatnew}.

This style should be avoided.  It looks awkward in Info, and utterly 
erroneous in the printed manual:

  This function can be hooked by the See File System Extensions, section 
  4.32, page 1234.  If you don't want this, you should use See _dos_creat,
  section 12.3, page 5432.

It is sometimes possible to get away by using @ref instead of @xref (it
doesn't produce "See"), but then you have problems with the Info output.  
On balance, I have found that the best way to handle these cases is 
something like this:

  This function can be hooked by the File System Extensions (@pxref{File
  System Extensions}).

> -   * latter case, we still have at least 80 inode numbers before
> +   * latter case, we still have at least 80 (???) inode numbers before

The number 80 is only correct for FAT16 filesystems (because the FAT 
itself takes some clusters which aren' counted).  I don't know what's 
right to say for FAT32 here.  I suggest to remove 80, since it might 
mislead, and say ``some'' instead, unless you can come up with revised 
numbers.