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

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:
: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

    Joerg, instead of arguing over it, will you PLEASE just add in a
    comment that describes what the offset means.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>