On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:16:24AM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote: > On 12-09-14 22:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:55:35PM +0200, Olaf Weber wrote: > >>I looked up those discussions in the archives. For example, here's > >>Christoph about rejecting filenames if they're not well-formed unicode. > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=120876935526856&w=2 > >>And Jamie Lokier making a similar point: > >> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-04/msg01263.html > > > >And I might now disagree with my past self. While non-ut8 characters > >are perfectly valid unix filenames, and I think everyones life is easier > >if we generally stay out of the utf8 business it seems that for this > >particular use case (shared filesystem with Windows, right) just > >accepting utf8 should be fine. ZFS is doing, MacOS X apparently is, > >and NFSv4 requires it, although as far as I know most implementations > >ignore that requirement. > > > > One issue is working in environments that are not UTF-8 clean. For > example, unpacking a tarball with non-UTF-8 filenames in it. The > names would have to be transcoded, which is only really possible if > you know the original character set. And if the filesystem flat out > rejects non-UTF-8 filenames, then you'd be unable to unpack the > tarball at all. So how do existing utf8/unicode enabled filesystems handle this? I think we should be consistent with ZFS, MacOS and others that already deal with this problem if at all possible. However, this really is a wider policy decision for the kernel/VFS as we want consistent behaviour across all linux filesystems, hence this patchset really needs to discussed at the lkml/-fsdevel level... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
