> 1. Where a directory or file only has an 8.3 name, use that name as
> currently. No change is needed in this case.
>
> 2. Where a FILE has both an 8.3 name and a LFN, have both appear
> in the relevant directory, set as hard links to each other.
Wonderful. So you are going to accept the situation when renaming one of
the links makes another disappear?
> 3. Where a DIRECTORY has both an 8.3 name and a LFN, have both
> appear in the relevant directory, but with the 8.3 name having
> mode 0000 and the immutable bit permanently set.
May I ask you, what for? What should happen if I'm saying
rm /mnt/shitfs/*; cp foo.bar.baz /mnt/shitfs/;cp /mnt/shitfs/* /tmp
- should it copy the sucker twice, or what? What should happen if I cp
from one directory to another on VFAT filesystem? Making cp or sh aware of
*FAT is not an option, indeed.
> Can I also ask one question about VFAT which I am not certain about:
> Where an entry has both an 8.3 name and a LFN, is the 8.3 name set by
> the LFN to be specifically one thing?
>
> The reason I ask this is that my understanding of the way the VFAT fs
> works implies that the two names are effectively independant, and the
> only requirement attached to them is that they both point to the same
> file.
>
> If that is true, then given the file...
>
> Q> ANTIDI~1.LST => Antidisestablishmentarians.lst
>
> ...there would in theory be nothing wrong with doing...
>
> Q> mv ANTIDI~1.LST LOSERS.LST
>
> ...and ending up with...
>
> Q> LOSERS.LST => Antidisestablishmentarians.lst
>
> ...even though the Windows rename command doesn't do that. Likewise,
> if one was to then do...
>
> Q> mv Antidisestablishmentarians.lst unwanted.lst
>
> ...then one could validly end up with...
>
> Q> LOSERS.LST => unwanted.lst
>
> ...even though both sides are valid 8.3 names.
>
> There would of course be a requirement that one of the two names must
> fit the 8.3 format, and I'm not pretending otherwise.
And what should happen after mv foo ANTIDI~1.LST? If you consider the
whole thing as hardlinks you should end up with (a) Anti.... with the same
contents as it used to have and (b) foo being renamed. Great, now we have
to generate a new short name. Undead files, anyone? Should we change this
behaviour if there is a file called .garlic?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/