Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Fri, 23 May 2003 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ocs.com.au (mail.ocs.com.au [203.34.97.2]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h4NEhI2x002792 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 07:43:19 -0700 Received: (qmail 5609 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 14:43:16 -0000 Received: from ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au (192.168.255.3) by mail.ocs.com.au with SMTP; 23 May 2003 14:43:16 -0000 Received: by ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au (Postfix, from userid 16331) id 55431D8F55; Sat, 24 May 2003 00:43:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529A091357; Sat, 24 May 2003 00:43:12 +1000 (EST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: Mixed case support in XFS In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 May 2003 16:24:10 +0200." <20030523142410.GB24098@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:43:07 +1000 Message-ID: <5837.1053700987@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> X-archive-position: 4118 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: kaos@sgi.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 847 Lines: 17 On Fri, 23 May 2003 16:24:10 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:17:30AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: >> Off the wall suggestion. Instead of changing XFS to suit Samba, layer >> another filesystem over XFS that converts all names to lower case and >> provide that filesystem view to Samba. Such a layered filesystem for > >That won't be fully win32 compatible. win32 is not case sensitive, but >it preserves case. The samba users would probably not be happy when >their filenames get all converted to lower case. Easily handled with a tweak to locasefs. creat() and readdir() preserve case, stat() and open() on existing files drop the filenames to lower case. But as Steve says, Irix has the same problem, so LUFS is not a permanent fix. It might be an acceptable workaround for Linux users in the short term.