Re: iso9660 vs udf

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...>, Andries E. Brouwer <Andries.Brouwer@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 8:46 pm

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:28AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:


You already got the relevant part of the dmesg log. Slightly more below.

I think the filesystem can be treated both as iso9660 and as udf,
at least that is what I seem to recall CD-BRIDGE means.  Thus,
if the kernel cannot mount it as udf, I think it is a kernel flaw.
Given that kernel flaw, and the fact that mounting as iso9660 works,
mount(8) could work around the kernel problem by guessing iso9660.
But maybe we should first try to fix the kernel.

Andries

Failed mount:
UDF-fs INFO UDF 0.9.8.1 (2004/29/09) Mounting volume 'Wisk1956-82', timestamp 2006/03/07 16:26 (1078)
udf: udf_read_inode(ino 547) failed !bh
UDF-fs: Error in udf_iget, block=1, partition=1

Success:
ISO 9660 Extensions: Microsoft Joliet Level 3
ISOFS: changing to secondary root

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
iso9660 vs udf, Andries E. Brouwer, (Sat Sep 15, 5:49 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Phillip Susi, (Wed Sep 19, 5:51 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Karel Zak, (Wed Sep 19, 9:23 am)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Andries E. Brouwer, (Wed Sep 19, 3:37 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Jan Kara, (Tue Sep 18, 10:47 am)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Sep 18, 8:18 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Andries E. Brouwer, (Tue Sep 18, 8:46 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Satyam Sharma, (Tue Sep 18, 10:35 pm)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Krzysztof Halasa, (Wed Sep 19, 7:11 am)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Andries E. Brouwer, (Wed Sep 19, 4:36 am)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Kay Sievers, (Wed Sep 19, 7:36 am)
Re: iso9660 vs udf, Randy Dunlap, (Tue Sep 18, 10:44 pm)