Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ugh... What's wrong with comparison to '*', '<', etc.? All values are
> below 0x80, so signedness of char doesn't matter and when they get
> promoted to int, they will give you the values you want...
Indeed. Thanks.
Please apply the following incremental
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:41:05AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> +static inline wchar_t vfat_bad_char(wchar_t w)
> +{
> + return (w < 0x0020)
> + || (w == 0x002A) /* * */|| (w == 0x003F) /* ? */
> + || (w == 0x003C) /* < */|| (w == 0x003E) /* > */
> + || (w == 0
From Rene Scharfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/vfat/namei.c | 49 +
1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/vfat/namei.c~fat_check-chars-cleanup fs/vfat/namei.c
--- linux-
3 matches
Mail list logo
