[HN Gopher] FatFs - Generic FAT Filesystem Module
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       FatFs - Generic FAT Filesystem Module
        
       Author : gjvc
       Score  : 42 points
       Date   : 2023-01-01 19:48 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (elm-chan.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (elm-chan.org)
        
       | EdSharkey wrote:
       | I am in the process of compiling this with emscripten to
       | javascript+wasm. The integration between your block storage
       | implementation and FatFs is straightforward other than ioctl,
       | which is mysterious to me and will take me a long time to figure
       | out what all my responibilities are.
       | 
       | This is my first time playing with emscripten and sharing buffers
       | between wasm and javascript is awkward.
        
         | snvzz wrote:
         | ioctl really is a ugly unixism that's totally out of place
         | there.
         | 
         | It could have been replaced by 3 or 4 calls with a clear single
         | purpose, and I'd hope they'll realize this and fix the API in a
         | future version.
        
         | loeg wrote:
         | http://elm-chan.org/fsw/ff/doc/dioctl.html describes the
         | expected ioctls to implement and their behavior. The mandatory
         | ioctls seem pretty straightforward. CTRL_SYNC will be a nop on
         | a browser-based storage, GET_BLOCK_SIZE should return 1
         | (unknown), and CTRL_TRIM looks like it could be nop (or you
         | could zero the range to more closely match real devices).
        
         | tremon wrote:
         | Sorry, but I can't help wonder: why?
         | 
         | What's the value of having direct device access in Javascript?
         | Are we expected to give the browser raw block device access
         | now? Maybe we could implement a FAT layer on top of S3, but I
         | really don't see the value in reimplementing block-level
         | storage on top of object storage.
        
           | kaoD wrote:
           | Might be useful for non-browser VMs? E.g. a microcontroller
           | running WASM.
        
             | marcosdumay wrote:
             | Even tough yes, that's a good answer to the GP... Are
             | people expecting WASM machines to be a thing? And with a
             | different fate from the Java machines? (I don't see how
             | they are different enough to change that fate.)
        
           | kzsdvkajsf wrote:
           | so you can snoop on users pendrives if they make the mistake
           | of allowing USB access from their google-chomeTM browser to
           | your domain. ;)
        
             | beatrobot wrote:
             | I don't think Chrome allows access to storage devices
             | through webusb.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-01 23:00 UTC)