Hi! > > Defaults should be back-compatible. > > I would usually agree, but I think we have an unusual situation here, > in some ways similar to a demonstrated security hole. The previous > behaviour exposed a lot of Linux vendors to the possibility of an > expensive legal fight. I'd actually like to see all-out software patent war in the U.S. It would make sure that software patents do not spread to the rest of world. Bad for U.S.? Yes. Good for world? Yes! > > Users considering disabling this should understand that filesystem > > they write to will not be valid vfat filesystems, and may trigger bugs > > in some devices. > > If we find any devices that exhibit any problems with this patch while > it is in linux-next (and maybe linux-mm?) then this warning would > indeed be appropriate. It no such devices are known then I think the > warning is going a bit far. You already know that it breaks XP and older linuxes. So... what are you arguing about?! Chkdsk marks it as invalid filesystem... not a vfat. If mickey$oft intentionally modified windows 8 to intentionally corrupt ext3 filesystems so that linux oopses on accessing them, how'd you like that? > > Why not use something like position in directory instead of random > > number? > > We did of course consider that, and the changes to the patch to > implement collision avoidance are relatively simple. We didn't do it > as it would weaken the legal basis behind the patch. I'll leave it to Consider it again. Or put fair 'this makes XP crash' warning in kconfig. Pavel PS: I find it bad that original patch description did not contain XP crashing / chkdsk explanation. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
