[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

On Monday 2009-07-06 22:58, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> 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
>> [Test with Windows 98, and 16-bit GDI programs under XP]
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> (pics kept for 7 days from now)
>Summary of pics, for posterity:
>[3] shows an [...] Question: In Windows 98, is it just the MS-DOS box
>which cannot see some of the filenames, or is the normal file explorer
>affected too?

[3] shows an MS-DOS window on a Win98 desktop, having just run the
"dir" command. In the background is a Win98 explorer window, for
comparison with the dir command.
Neither of the two ways of listing the contents of a directory show
any filenames for <illegal 8.3, long name present> entries as produced
by tridge's vfat patches.

>[4] shows a old-looking Windows application, presumably 16-bit running
> on XP, with a File Selection box listing the a:\ drive. Four
> files are shown on the a:\ drive in a selection box, but the first
> of them is completely blank.

As the filename and the intro text had said..

[4] 16-bit program (Windows 3.x era) running on XP (but probably also
happens earlier). File dialog shows blank line where an entry has an
illegal 8.3 name; also as a result of the vfat aptches.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-06 23:11    [W:0.275 / U:2.764 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site