> On 6/9/20 12:03 PM, Sungjong Seo wrote:
> >> Some fsck tool complain that padding part of the FileName Field is
> >> not set to the value 0000h. So let's follow the filesystem spec.
> > As I know, it's specified as not "shall" but "should".
> > That is, it is not a mandatory for compatibility.
> > Have you checked it on Windows?
> Right, it's not mandatory and only some fsck'er do complain for this.
> But, there's no benefit by leaving the garbage bytes in the filename entry.
> Isn't it?
> Or, are you saying about the commit message?
The latter, I'm just saying this is not a spec-violation :)
> >> Signed-off-by: Hyeongseok.Kim <Hyeongseok@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> fs/exfat/dir.c | 3 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/exfat/dir.c b/fs/exfat/dir.c index de43534..6c9810b
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/fs/exfat/dir.c
> >> +++ b/fs/exfat/dir.c
> >> @@ -424,6 +424,9 @@ static void exfat_init_name_entry(struct
> >> exfat_dentry *ep,
> >> exfat_set_entry_type(ep, TYPE_EXTEND);
> >> ep->dentry.name.flags = 0x0;
> >>
> >> + memset(ep->dentry.name.unicode_0_14, 0,
> >> + sizeof(ep->dentry.name.unicode_0_14));
> >> +
> >> for (i = 0; i < EXFAT_FILE_NAME_LEN; i++) {
> >> ep->dentry.name.unicode_0_14[i] = cpu_to_le16(*uniname);
> >> if (*uniname == 0x0)
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >
> >
