From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IZvy8-0006QU-RT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:59:56 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IZvy7-0006Ph-8C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:59:56 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZvy6-0006PV-VR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:59:55 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>) id 1IZvy6-0000n8-Cj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:59:54 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:58:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <46F80DCF.2000201@tele2.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709242257010.28395@racer.site>
References: <219e947f0709221443l494e4c46w6efafce989dbb867@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709222342190.28395@racer.site>
	<219e947f0709240350j6e011564j31a84015910ab481@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709241218280.28395@racer.site>
	<219e947f0709240712q3b8ccdaej491f777fbdc76bce@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0709241630310.28395@racer.site>
	<46F80DCF.2000201@tele2.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] vvfat mbr fixes
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Lorenzo Campedelli <lorenzo.campedelli@tele2.it>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi,

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Lorenzo Campedelli wrote:

> I think you were referring to the small patch I sent. I actually gave up 
> with it, as I don't see how to make it in a clean way.
> 
> Honestly I found your suggestion to try to have it less special-casing 
> vvfat a bit puzzling... vvfat is the only case in which there's any need 
> to override realpath() behaviour, so I tried to make it as clear as 
> possible.

It makes the code ugly as hell, and it limits (unnecessarily) future 
extensions.

But since you made quite clear that you do not want to change your patch, 
I will stop wasting my time.

Ciao,
Dscho