From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754272Ab2GBOps (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:45:48 -0400 Received: from mail.digidescorp.com ([50.73.98.161]:31872 "EHLO mail.digidescorp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751562Ab2GBOpr (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:45:47 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=digidescorp.com; c=simple; q=dns; h=message-id:from; b=1IKncLGdTowz0MbGTOWUgENIkQpQJS/TcwN95xpRkZgTS0ZUu61if/f7k7Y1 yMmsG7TeWyqMzi9lvRI2GT5jsdTirME+oDjM6r45IKhUMkQ382vGVInpC Bs0Hlt88GcmmuSp5YteVoYwZRyePrXd3oCupnNFt2fHDQzqNaCMHFY=; X-Spam-Processed: mail.digidescorp.com, Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:45:45 -0500 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-Authenticated-Sender: steve@digidescorp.com X-Return-Path: prvs=1530ba36e9=steve@digidescorp.com X-Envelope-From: steve@digidescorp.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1341240342.1695.20.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fat: Refactor shortname parsing From: "Steven J. Magnani" To: OGAWA Hirofumi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:45:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <8762a6nsao.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <1340993528-12111-1-git-send-email-steve@digidescorp.com> <87r4syrl4y.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <1340997235.9826.7.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> <87bok1sx6j.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87zk7lribe.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <1341234099.1695.13.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> <87fw9anuwk.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <1341237638.1695.16.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> <8762a6nsao.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3 (3.4.3-1.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 23:36 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > "Steven J. Magnani" writes: > > > True, but with the change you suggest we lose the incrementing of 'i', > > which likely would cause an infinite loop for 1:1 Unicode conversions. > > You meant, we just have to do > > if (!is_vfat) > ptname[i] = ...; > i++; > > or something? I still feel this looks better to indicate, we don't use > ptname in the case of vfat. I can change it, but there are other places in that function where ptname is used that are not qualified with !is_vfat, so I don't know whether this improves clarity or reduces it. I do think fat_tolower() should not be making decisions. IMHO the trigraph and a comment, perhaps before the vfat-only reassignment of 'name', would be clearer. Steve