On 6/9/20 1:55 PM, Sungjong Seo wrote:
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 :)
Yes, I got it.
Thanks.
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
