Re: [PATCH] fat: Refactor shortname parsing

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>]

"Steven J. Magnani" <steve@digidescorp.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 23:36 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: 
>> "Steven J. Magnani" <steve@digidescorp.com> 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. 

Hm, the primary case is vfat. fat_tolower()/hidden is required only for
msdos, and ptname too. So, my suggestion is trying to keep vfat case
clean.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>