Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Monday 2009-07-06 22:58, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> On Monday 2009-07-06 20:55, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >>How did things go with your mp3 players?
>> >[...]
>> >As it stands, my two devices always want a valid 8.3 name.
>> 
>> On or about June 26, James Bottomley exchanged these words to Andrew Tridgell:
>> >So the patch has been tested with Vista, Windows 7 and Windows XP
>> 
>> [Test with Windows 98, and 16-bit GDI programs under XP]
>> [3] http://picpaste.de/w98dualnames.png
>> [4] http://picpaste.de/xpwith16bit.png
>> (pics kept for 7 days from now)
>
>Summary of pics, for posterity:
>[3] shows an [...] Question: In Windows 98, is it just the MS-DOS box
>which cannot see some of the filenames, or is the normal file explorer
>affected too?

[3] shows an MS-DOS window on a Win98 desktop, having just run the
"dir" command. In the background is a Win98 explorer window, for
comparison with the dir command.
Neither of the two ways of listing the contents of a directory show
any filenames for <illegal 8.3, long name present> entries as produced
by tridge's vfat patches.

>[4] shows a old-looking Windows application, presumably 16-bit running
>    on XP, with a File Selection box listing the a:\ drive.  Four
>    files are shown on the a:\ drive in a selection box, but the first
>    of them is completely blank.

As the filename and the intro text had said..

[4] 16-bit program (Windows 3.x era) running on XP (but probably also
happens earlier). File dialog shows blank line where an entry has an
illegal 8.3 name; also as a result of the vfat aptches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/