|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2004-02-26 13:43:22
|
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:22, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 11:21, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > > > Adding NTFS 3.1 support would be also wonderful. There aren't many changes > > > compared to NTFS 1.2 and this could help _a lot_ to make (automatic) > > > testing and development easier. There wouldn't be need to get XP images, > > > we could create whenever we need. > > > > Huh? I never added NTFS 3.x support because any form of Windows 2k or > > later will just upgrade the volume on mount so it seems silly to have > > mkntfs more complicated. > > It's not silly. First of all I can not confirm you're right that all Win > versions, in all cases will upgrade from 1.2 to 3.x. Maybe you only tried > an NT4 -> W2K upgrade and in that case it make sense to upgrade NTFS but > not otherwise, as I've seen several times. Ah, the ntfs driver in win2k will upgrade an NTFS 1.2 volume at mount time. Not just at install time! Any time you give an ntfs 1.2 volume to win2k ntfs it will upgrade it immediately. As I said I have no idea about recent windows versions. > Secondly and most importantly, you _need_ Windows to do this. And that's > silly :-) True. But then maybe we need a utilitiy that can upgrade ntfs 1.2 to 3.x rather than having mkntfs create 3.x. After all you might already have data on the partition and don't want to backup, mkntfs, restore... > > > > > * @param dst [out] points the buffer to receive the unicode string > > > > > * @param src [in] points the char string to be converted > > > > > * @param size [in] size of the @dst buffer in bytes > > > > > > The [in|out]'s are _very_ important. I also always missed them. > > > > Fair enough, we can add them but we can still please use this form: > > > > @dst: description [OUT] > > @src: description2 [IN] > > @size: description3 [IN] > > [IN|OUT] in the end is obfuscated and against the general conventions. > > > Also is @dst really [OUT]? To me it seems like @dst is [IN] but *@dst > > is [OUT]... > > Modified directly, indirectly, struct members, etc. It's based on common > sense but maybe it's also written somewhere :) I have always found these [IN|OUT] things confusing and obfuscating. It's quite clear from the code what they are... > > I hate this [IN] and [OUT] stuff but if you like them feel free to add > > them but _please_ at the end of the lines so I can just ignore them when > > reading... > > That's very important who reads it. If only you then you're right. If > others also then their opinion might count as well if you're interested to > get some help ;) Ok, ok. I give in, put them in wherever you like but at least preserve some sane formatting like: @paramname:<tab>[IN]<space>description Is that a deal? (-: Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ |
