Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

[Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> On Monday 2009-07-06 22:58, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >> On Monday 2009-07-06 20:55, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> >>How did things go with your mp3 players?
> >> >[...]
> >> >As it stands, my two devices always want a valid 8.3 name.
> >> 
> >> On or about June 26, James Bottomley exchanged these words to Andrew Tridgell:
> >> >So the patch has been tested with Vista, Windows 7 and Windows XP
> >> 
> >> [Test with Windows 98, and 16-bit GDI programs under XP]
> >> [3] http://picpaste.de/w98dualnames.png
> >> [4] http://picpaste.de/xpwith16bit.png
> >> (pics kept for 7 days from now)
> >
> >Summary of pics, for posterity:
> >[3] shows an [...] Question: In Windows 98, is it just the MS-DOS box
> >which cannot see some of the filenames, or is the normal file explorer
> >affected too?
> 
> [3] shows an MS-DOS window on a Win98 desktop, having just run the
> "dir" command. In the background is a Win98 explorer window, for
> comparison with the dir command.
> Neither of the two ways of listing the contents of a directory show
> any filenames for <illegal 8.3, long name present> entries as produced
> by tridge's vfat patches.

Indeed.  I missed the explorer window behind the MS-DOS box, because
it has a few icons but the file names are missing.  They're missing
because of modified FAT.

> >[4] shows a old-looking Windows application, presumably 16-bit running
> >    on XP, with a File Selection box listing the a:\ drive.  Four
> >    files are shown on the a:\ drive in a selection box, but the first
> >    of them is completely blank.
>
> As the filename and the intro text had said..
>
> [4] 16-bit program (Windows 3.x era) running on XP (but probably also
> happens earlier). File dialog shows blank line where an entry has an
> illegal 8.3 name; also as a result of the vfat aptches.

Your original mail didn't say about the	MS-DOS box in the 98 pic,
which is why I explained it (since the pics will disappear but the l-k
mail will be archived).

I wanted to point that out because MS-DOS file access (even in a DOS
box) is different from Windows file access.

It wouldn't be surprising if modified FAT broke on MS-DOS but worked
in 16-bit Windows - but thanks for showing that it breaks 16-bit Windows too.

And then I wanted to say the XP pic wasn't an MS-DOS box like the 98 pic...

That's all.

-- Jamie