From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 23 17:52:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA29966 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:52:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from helios.dnttm.ru (root@dnttm.wave.ras.ru [194.85.104.197]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29563 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:47:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by helios.dnttm.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5/IP-3) with UUCP id EAA14218; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:43:32 +0300 Received: from tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA02346; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:45:37 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru) Message-Id: <199712240145.EAA02346@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96 To: Luoqi Chen cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: msdosfs win95 long file name support In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:07:31 EST." <199712231607.LAA01641@watermarkgroup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:45:37 +0300 From: Dmitrij Tejblum Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Luoqi Chen wrote: > Dima, don't be so cynical. Sorry, I didn' want to offend you, really. > I think technically my solution is better, there's > still room for improvement though. There is always a big room for improvement :( :( See: Wolfgang Solfrank develop msdosfs from 1994. And he still maintain it --- at least he adds years to his copyright notice :). WS and NetBSD adds support for new Microsoft stuff soon after Microsoft release these stuff. NetBSD and OpenBSD users already tested long file name support somehow. So I (as an user) would prefer Wolfgang's work over your 2 weekend's work. Why change the "professional" stuff for "homegrown"? For slight performance improvement plus some lack of correctness? (Both performance and full correctness is not so important for me, though.) You say, you can do something better? Sure. But did you tried offer your patches to NetBSD people? Why not follow the simple rule --- before fixing or improving a software, get the latest version? Sorry if above offend you (or somebody else). I actually only want to convince you that importing NetBSD code again is not so bad idea too. :) > The problem you mentioned could be easily > remedied by a bitmap. I didn't do this because I wanted to focus on more > important issues. After those are working correctly, then I can deal with > lesser issues like this one. > > There is another feature I programmed in which is (arguably) quite desirable. > It allows you to change a filename to one that differs only by the case > of some of the letters. For example, mv README Readme. You cannot do this > in NetBSD's code (I didn't try this, just by reading their code, so I could > be wrong). Of course, you can always do, mv README r; mv r Readme. Yes, this is very desirable (for me, at least), and yes, NetBSD cannot do it. (Btw, i suspect that their 'do nothing if the files are same' is only a quick fix for a panic. So, they may want something better too). I will say you more about bugs in the NetBSD code: for example, it cannot handle russian filenames :) Apparently, readdir returns something that lookup cannot find. I suspect that your code do not have this problem: you don't try to recode filenames, like NetBSD. But in long term perspective, russians filenames should be recoded, since russian charsets in dos, windows, and unix are different. NetBSD recode tables simple don't work for russian charsets, apparently... ... NetBSD fixed some problems with mounting (i hope). (This is post-Lite2 problems, i. e. they don't apply to 2.2...) It may be not so important, of course, but... again: Lite-2 merge was almost year ago, and since that nobody fixed the problems. You also haven't fixed them. How can we get them fixed, if not import the NetBSD code? Note also that the merge is already done... Dima