Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:53:43 +0400 (MSD) | From | Khimenko Victor <> | Subject | Re: Your backup is unsafe! |
| |
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote: > > > > The reason I ask this is that my understanding of the way the VFAT fs > > > works implies that the two names are effectively independant, and the > > > only requirement attached to them is that they both point to the same > > > file. > > > > Wrong. LFN is attached to short name. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds very like an > LFN is actually a (rather restricted) symlink. > Not exactly. It just placed before files itself in directory and has simple checksum of short filename inside. It's described in vfat.txt in Documentation/filesystems directory.
> Perhaps that's a potential solution. > > It could make for rather ugly directory listings, but IMO > that's better than the ugly code that we have now. > I'm not sure if it'll be less ugly. It's not untypical for a lot of programs to create a temporary file and then remove them. With your symlink proposal just LFN will be deleted and file remains untouched. The same is true for original hardlink's suggestions.
In short: ANY such scheme will solve some problems and introduce other nasty problems.
P.S. And no, we can not just ignore short names/long names collisions and create files with new file with LFN conflicting with short name or other file. It'll work with Linux, but Windows9X/NT will be confused badly and if you do not need Windows9X/NT interoperability then better to use ext2fs or raiserfs anyway... The same goes against the idea of changing short names when needed...
- 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/
| |