Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vfs/hpfs hpfs_vnops.c

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:18:49AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     The 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.

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 is
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.

The wraparound test was not removed, but coded explicitly. Checking for
two types having identical values is a bad thing, because it can
surprising results when both types have the same width and different
signedness.

Joerg