Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> And did this work correctly about f_pos for readdir? > Yes, sure. f_pos is work correctly about each directory entry. because > after name[0] == 0x00, there are no allocated directory entires. >> >> I'm not thinking about f_pos deeply though, it may have something >> wrong. Because it stops at middle of cluster. > Plz See the below descirption about name[0] in FAT spec. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If DIR_Name[0] == 0x00, then the directory entry is free (same as for > 0xE5), and there are no allocated directory entries after this one > (all of the DIR_Name[0] bytes in all of the entries after this one are > also set to 0). > The special 0 value, rather than the 0xE5 value, indicates to FAT file > system driver code that the rest of the entries in this directory do > not need to be examined because they are all free. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think that lookuping entry till the end of cluster is not needed. > Let me know your opinion. I know it though. There is seek() and broken drivers adds entries after name[0] == 0. I think we don't need to care much about broken drivers though. Even if so, kernel should not be crash, and corrupts fs more. > And Would you tell me your opinion about fat exportfs ? Ah, I was thinking I did. But it seems I didn't actually. Can you post full of series? So, I can review and probably we can start to test it. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
