On Mon, 10 April 2006 15:11:16 -0500, Steve French wrote: > > There are cases in which servers fails to return . and .. in search > (readdir) results over CIFS. In particular Windows servers which > export the root of a drive. > > Is returning . and .. in readdir results always required (ie a client > change is necessary to insert them if they were not returned)? and do . > and .. have to be first in the list of entries in the directory (which > would be very inconvenient since I may have to read through all of the > directory search results)? Although . and .. are usually returned in > the first of what could be many search (Transact2 FindNext) responses > from the server, I don't think it is required. Iirc, this is not really defined. No spec requires you to return . and .. at all. On the other hand, many userspace programs are plain buggy if you don't. So most filesystems try to return those two and return them as the first results - even if they are not stored in the on-medium format at all. Jffs2 comes to mind as just one example. Would it be hard to 1) always prepend the actual results with . and .. and 2) remove . and .. from actual results, if they occur later? Jörn -- Schrödinger's cat is <BLINK>not</BLINK> dead. -- Illiad - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
