On 21.08.2005, at 21:42, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:18:49AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:I removed the comment because it is simply incorrect. If there should be a comment, it should descripe why the on-disk offset in the directory isThe comment should be put back in, and clarified even more then it currently is. e.g. I don't understand why the full negative range is allowed when only one or two directory entries are faked up, or why the wraparound test was removed.not, but the added comment didn't do that. Arguments against using it that way is the complication of code [for a secondary filesystem] and the possible security issues coming from it.
I don't see how the comment was incorrect. Don't expect me to know the complete hpfs filesystem though. If you want to eliberate on all details of the directory structure of hpfs in this comment, be my guest and add this information, but don't just remove a helpful comment because it doesn't cover every single detail every possible developer could eventually need at some point in time. The point of this comment is to inform the developer working (by accident?) on this file to understand that hpfs_readdir uses uio_offset in a special way: it increases uio_offset by 1 for each entry and not by the entry size itself. This is crucial information for somebody who happens to have to need to fix something there.
cheers simon -- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low $$$ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
