On Thu 17-05-12 02:48:49, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > > I've noticed another duplication in the UDF code: there > > is NLS support and separate UTF-8 support. UTF-8 is support by 2 ways > > actually: with -o utf8 and -o iocharset=utf8 which imply different > > codepaths. Specific UTF-8 support is probably slightly faster by > > avoiding calls and basically doing everything with shifts (or can be > > made so with a small patch). Should I perhaps kill one of them? Is > > iocharset!=utf8 still of any importance? I haven't seen it in ages. > > Perhaps we could keep just the performant UTF-8 support and map > > iocharset=utf8 to it and drop iocharset!=utf8? iocharset!=utf8 probably > > has no users anyway so keeping it we're likely to keep bugs and code > > duplication with no benefit. > > > > Linux seems to support UTF-8-only pretty strongly: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/utf8.html > (message from Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:42:45 GMT). > And I completely agree. > If it's ok to kill iocharset!=utf8 I'll propose a series of 3 patches (killing iocharset!=utf8, > extending utf16toutf8/utf8toutf16 for unaligned input, changing UDF code to use common functions) Well, yes, utf8 is currently the only sane setting but that doesn't mean someone isn't using (e.g. iso8859-2) for strange reasons... We should regress in user visible functionality only for really good reasons and here I don't see a strong reason. So I'd like to keep current iocharset mount option and make utf8 option equivalent to iocharset=utf8. Since I don't think the speed benefit of dedicated CS0<->UTF8 functions is really that big and UDF isn't exactly a filesystem where it would matter anyway, I'd just remove those dedicated functions and use the generic ones instead. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
