Could mount_msdosfs be less cryptic and more compatible with fsck_msdosfs?

[Lev Serebryakov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 18.01.2015 03:36, Gary Palmer wrote:

>> I could not mount FAT32 image, but "fsck_msdosfs" says, that it
>> is valid, good FAT32 image.
>> 
>> % sudo fsck_msdosfs /dev/md0 ** /dev/md0 ** Phase 1 - Read and
>> Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 -
>> Checking Directories ** Phase 4 - Checking for Lost Files 7
>> files, 96256 free (188 clusters) % sudo mount -t msdosfs /dev/md0
>> /mnt mount_msdosfs: /dev/md0: Invalid argument %
>> 
>> I don't know what should I do to mount this image.
>> 
>> I'm using 10-STABLE.
> 
> Did you check dmesg?  Sometimes filesystems give more detail in
> kernel logs than is possible through error codes.
  Yep, nothing.

- -- 
// Lev Serebryakov AKA Black Lion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
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=C61A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----