From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tridge@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES option Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:21:02 +1000 Message-ID: <19013.18894.749105.721881@samba.org> References: <19013.8005.541836.436991@samba.org> <4A45405A.1010404@zytor.com> Reply-To: tridge@samba.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi , john.lanza@linux.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Kleikamp , Steve French , Mingming Cao , Paul McKenney To: "H. Peter Anvin" Return-path: Received: from mail.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:53350 "EHLO lists.samba.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257AbZFZWVM (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:21:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A45405A.1010404@zytor.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: hpa wrote: > However, as such it really should be paired with a "don't even recognize > the shortname if a longname exists" option. Right, we could just skip the 8.3 name matching and go straight to the longname match in fat_search_long(). I wonder if anyone ever relies on the 8.3 matching when a file has a long name on Linux? > It's also questionable IMO if this shouldn't be another FAT superdriver, > just as we have VFAT, MS-DOS etc. we could have "purevfat". It would be only a few lines of code difference between the two drivers - is it worth the maintainence overhead of splitting it up? Maybe a mount option to ignore 8.3 names for files with long names would be better? Perhaps even the default? Cheers, Tridge