From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m33J6BEY023215 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:06:12 -0700 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:55:26 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] XFS: Unicode case-insensitive lookup implementation Message-ID: <20080403185526.GA6045@infradead.org> References: <20080402062508.017738664@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <20080402062709.011126702@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> <20080403171450.GB22385@infradead.org> <20080403172400.GC22812@samba1> <20080403184333.GA30595@infradead.org> <20080403184739.GB6100@samba1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080403184739.GB6100@samba1> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Barry Naujok , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:47:39AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > CI filenames can work perfectly fine without adding validation of file > > names by treating non-conformant bytestreams as not having lower/upper > > case variants. > > Sorry, then I'm not understanding your objection to this patch (and I > don't think I understood that sentence :-). I objected to the part of the patch I've quoted (and the bitsrelated to it), not all of it. That how we do reviews in kernel land, not sure how samba handles it if you have a binary object/don't object policy..