Removing unfinished write support makes sense. Who knows, maybe
it makes read support more sustainable...
Martin Natano wrote:
> mount_ntfs forces the mount point to be MNT_RDONLY, so the write parts
> in ntfs are never used. OK to remove?
i think so.
by the way, this code is probably a dead end, compared to the fuse code. is
that right? but we should keep it around for a while until we're sure the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 05:17:41PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> Yes, ok beck@
>
> to be shortly followed by the ntfs code - don't we have a fuse version of
> this?
There's the ntfs_3g port benno uses. Iirc, access via ntfs_3g is
somewhat slower than with the native filesystem (not that I care).
>
Yes, ok beck@
to be shortly followed by the ntfs code - don't we have a fuse version of
this?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Martin Natano wrote:
> mount_ntfs forces the mount point to be MNT_RDONLY, so the write parts
> in ntfs are never used. OK to remove?
>
> natano
>
as far as i'm concerned ok benno@
btw i have incresingly problems with mounting ntfs partions (read-only) with
this and use the ntfs_3g fuse port.
Martin Natano(nat...@natano.net) on 2016.08.31 23:34:43 +0200:
> mount_ntfs forces the mount point to be MNT_RDONLY, so the write parts
> in ntfs are
mount_ntfs forces the mount point to be MNT_RDONLY, so the write parts
in ntfs are never used. OK to remove?
natano
Index: ntfs/ntfs_subr.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/ntfs/ntfs_subr.c,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -p -r1.47