Re: FAT and Stores
> I take the blame. I thought we are safe to use other block sizes. With
> "a lot of user level code" in the comment I was not actually thinking that
> we are affected, and I only checked some stuff in libstore if it would
> accept oteher block sizes.
Ahem. Yes, well the "lot of user level code" that comment refers to is
e.g. all code written using storage devices on any Unix-like system since
the the late 1970s. 512 is The Size.
> Should not have sneaked in such a change together with the other change.
Boot to the head.
Reply to: