> Am 12.08.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Rob Clark :
>
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 10.08.17 20:29, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, this is super-hacky. The FAT code is quite ugly, and this doesn't
>>> improve things. But it doesn't make it significantly wor
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 10.08.17 20:29, Rob Clark wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this is super-hacky. The FAT code is quite ugly, and this doesn't
>> improve things. But it doesn't make it significantly worse either. The
>> better option would be a massive FAT re-writ
On 10.08.17 20:29, Rob Clark wrote:
Yes, this is super-hacky. The FAT code is quite ugly, and this doesn't
improve things. But it doesn't make it significantly worse either. The
better option would be a massive FAT re-write to get rid of the hacky
way that fat_file_ls() works. Volunteers we
Yes, this is super-hacky. The FAT code is quite ugly, and this doesn't
improve things. But it doesn't make it significantly worse either. The
better option would be a massive FAT re-write to get rid of the hacky
way that fat_file_ls() works. Volunteers welcome.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark
---
f
4 matches
Mail list logo