Skip to content

Conversation

@thejpster
Copy link
Member

@thejpster thejpster commented Oct 29, 2024

This code belongs in the FAT implementation as it is all FAT-specific.

Also fixed a bug where .. had the wrong parent cluster - both FAT16 and FAT32 should use 0 according to the complaints I was getting from fsck.

Fixes #161

@thejpster thejpster force-pushed the move-make-dir-code branch 2 times, most recently from 9510411 to 3c5cc62 Compare October 29, 2024 13:51
@thejpster thejpster changed the title Move FAT-specifc code in make_dir_in_dir. Move FAT-specific code in make_dir_in_dir (and fix .. entries) Oct 29, 2024
@thejpster thejpster force-pushed the move-make-dir-code branch 2 times, most recently from 409dcdf to 4ecad03 Compare October 30, 2024 18:53
@thejpster
Copy link
Member Author

Rebased on develop

@thejpster thejpster requested a review from jannic October 30, 2024 22:03
This code belongs in the FAT implementation as it is all FAT-specific.
I ran fsck on it and it wanted to ensure we had two copies of the Volume Label - one as a volume label file in the root and one in the filesystem metadata.
@thejpster thejpster added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 3, 2024
Merged via the queue into develop with commit 8a8d52c Nov 3, 2024
8 checks passed
@thejpster thejpster deleted the move-make-dir-code branch June 7, 2025 22:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

When parent (..) of dir is root, use cluster ID 0

3 participants