Hi!
> Based on results I would propose following unification:
>
...
> 4. Prefer label from the root directory. If there is none entry (means
> there is also no erased entry), then read label from root sector.
>
> --> Reason: Windows XP and mlabel ignores what is written in boot
> sector. Windows XP even do not update boot sector, so label
> stored in boot sector is incorrect after any change done by
> Windows XP.
>
> But due to compatibility with older dosfslabel, which stores
> label only to boot sector, there is need for some fallback. Due
> to point 1. the best seems to be to process also erased label in
> root directory (marked with leading 0xE5) and fallback to boot
> sector only in case label in root directory is missing.
>
> What do you think about it?
4. seems dangerous. Assume we have "OLD" in boot sector and "0xe5-EW" in the
directory
entry. The label will change from <none> to "OLD" when the directory entry is
reused by
"FOO.TXT", right? That seems surprising / dangerous.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
