On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 23:09:08 +0200, Rugxulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> But how do you view this data? Certainly there must be some easy way > (without manually viewing raw disk info). I don't know. You mentioned 4DOS, so I'm going to give that a try, or one of the many DIR replacements (or write my own...). But if nothing else, at least other operating systems show it. > Anyways, the point is that some files on my FAT32 partition do have > such times set via other OSes. So do some of my files. But I wish FreeDOS had this functionality as well, and implementing it was trivial for me, even though I had never modified the kernel before. > You're still not clarifying what programs you'll be using. You expect > every program ever written to transparently support this? In that > case, you can't rely on DOSLFN at all. In fact, most DOS programs > either don't want or don't use both SFNs and LFNs. So you can't 100% > rely on int 21h 71xxh (Win95 LFN) being properly supported, even under > DOSLFN. > > Unless maybe the kernel maintainers figure it's acceptable to > implement that one subset of the API internally (without DOSLFN, > obviously). Which isn't the worst idea, but it's still unlikely. You're making this a bigger problem than it is. I'm not suggesting we move "Windows 95 LFN" functions into the kernel, just that we modify the kernel to set the creation times of new files, which is a trivial thing to do (just two extra assignment statements) and it benefits (if you could call it that) programs that call "Windows 95 LFN" functions or at least other operating systems and (I'm pretty sure) it breaks nothing. Although, taking another look at it, the comment above the init_direntry function does say "creation/access stamps 0 as per MS-DOS 7.10", so apparently not setting those times was a deliberate decision. In that case, fine, I understand that my suggestion is going to be rejected (and like I said, I can live with a custom kernel), but I still don't understand how setting them would break compatibility. > How many ways can you create a file anyways? (3Ch? 6Ch? 716Ch? FCB?) > Does the kernel call a single routine to do each of them? Yes, it seems so. > In other words, you have to make sure every single call is updating the > FAT > timestamps. For the creation time, it seems there is only one place to do it. For the last access time, I'm sure we agree it's useless. :) Even Windows doesn't update it by default since Vista, though admittedly only for NTFS: http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2006/11/07/disabling-last-access-time-in-windows-vista-to-improve-ntfs-performance.aspx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
