From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20011127155855.G10071@plato.local.lan> References: <20011126231944.E10071@plato.local.lan> <20011127172847.33B512B54A@marcus.pants.nu> <20011127155855.G10071@plato.local.lan> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 02:40:09 -0800 To: Ethan Benson , linuxppc From: "Timothy A. Seufert" Subject: Re: TiBook, 1394, iPod working (sort of ;-) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: At 3:58 PM -0900 11/27/01, Ethan Benson wrote: >On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 09:28:47AM -0800, Brad Boyer wrote: >> >> Well, according to Apple's documentation, the only version of HFS+ >> is version 4, so I have no idea what's up with that... > >well it also doesn't document things like the permission bits, it just >says they are unused and reserved, obviously this is not the case >given OSX, apple just has not updated this document. > >that means theres a bit of reverse engineering involved as well since >apple is using a newwer version of HFS+ which is not entirely >documented. The documentation is the source now, it would seem. (just like much of Linux :) See: xnu-9-1/bsd/hfs/ in the Darwin kernel (aka "xnu") source. hfs_format.h defines the on-disk layout, including the structure used for storage of permission bits. From the information in that file it looks like the HFS+ version is still 4, BTW. Looks like it should even be possible to figure out how Apple did the hard- and soft-link hacks. Maybe one day Linux will be able to boot directly from HFS+ just as Darwin does. That would be perverse. :) -- Tim Seufert ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/