Re: [PATCH] fat: Refactor shortname parsing

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>]

"Steven J. Magnani" <steve@digidescorp.com> writes:

>> Hm, the primary case is vfat. fat_tolower()/hidden is required only for
>> msdos, and ptname too. So, my suggestion is trying to keep vfat case
>> clean.
>
> It's not clear to me where you want to go with this. 
>
> 1. Split fat_parse_short() into msdos and vfat versions. This may
> improve clarity, but there would be some replication of code.

This is not a option. We are better to not change.

> 2. Sprinkle "if (!isvfat)" throughout the already-proposed version of
> fat_parse_short()
>   A. Everywhere
>   B. Only in the places you've proposed

I'm not sure what (A) means though. Probably, I will not care.

> 3. Retain the already-proposed version of fat_parse_short(), but add a
> comment that the uni_name overrides the msdos "ptname", and separate out
> the decision to lowercase from fat_tolower() [i.e., the trigraph].

The trigraph change doesn't cleanup anything. Because it is using
needless ptname on vfat path.

vfat always uses the uni_name and doesn't use ptname, right?  And msdos
path doesn't use the uni_name and use ptname always.  So, I'm saying,
let's make clear those difference and usage, by annotating with isvfat.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>