Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


Vista, 7... nothing special.

So let me fill in.

Windows 98 can't make anything of the stunted vfat entries either[3],
and there's blanks for 16-bit programs[4]. They too, it seems, always
want an 8.3 entry in any case.
It does not crash, but neither of these results is usable.

This dualnames patch just won't fly in practice.


[3] http://picpaste.de/w98dualnames.png
[4] http://picpaste.de/xpwith16bit.png
(pics kept for 7 days from now)
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux