Messages in this thread | | | From | "Khimenko Victor" <> | Date | Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:37:59 +0400 (MSD) | Subject | Re: Your backup is unsafe! |
| |
In <5ef05fb67d27bfeb@home-box.demon.co.uk> Robert de Bath (rd103979@home-box.demon.co.uk) wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Nathan Hand wrote:
>> The problem isn't straightforward. Simply stated, VFAT has two names for >> a file, both are valid, both must be preserved, only one is visible, but >> both are usable at all times. This does not map onto any UNIX filesystem >> so some magic is needed. > Under _Windows_ both are valid. Do you really think this brain dammage > should be kept in Linux? There is no reason for the short name to be > visable _except_ when there are interactions with DOS, this comes down > to dosemu, samba and backups.
The whole idea of VFAT usage is interaction with Windows9X/NT. If you do not need it then use ext2fs, reiserfs or whatever. And since Windows9X/NT hounrs short names Linux should as well (Windows9X will be VERY upset if you'll create new file with LFN "PROGRA~1" along with usual "Program Files" with short name "PROGRA~1").
>> How about a magic file in each VFAT directory which contains mappings of >> long to short filenames. You only see the long names using standard UNIX >> file I/O. Then backups work, because you backup the magic file too, so a >> restore will put the correct short/long mappings back. > Yes, I thought of this but the coding would be horrific. I think this would > work out to be just the same as using a directory by directory sfn_backup, > and IMO it's better to do it in userspace and keep those horrors from the > kernel.
Exactly :-) BTW all ioctls are in place...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |