Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750836AbVIJNiH (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:38:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750839AbVIJNiH (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:38:07 -0400 Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.130]:21220 "EHLO ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750836AbVIJNiG (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:38:06 -0400 X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:38:04 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Altaparmakov To: Giuseppe Bilotta cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [2.6-GIT] NTFS: Release 2.1.24. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <58obd5djrqk$.1nrux2jfwk0jg.dlg@40tude.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1961 Lines: 41 On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:18:01 +0100 (BST), Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > This is the next NTFS update containing a ton of bug fixes several of > > > which fix bugs people actually hit in the big bad world... > > > > > > Please apply. Thanks! > > > > > > I am sending the changesets as actual patches generated using git > > > format-patch for non-git users in follow up emails (in reply to this one). > > > > BTW Anton, while looking for the best permission masks to be used when > > mounting my NTFS paritions, I spotted what I think is a bug, or at > > least an inconsistency between the way all fs drivers I use handle > > umasks & friends, and the way NTFS does it. Basically, all the other > > fs drivers take an octal representation of the masks. NTFS, instead, > > seems to use _decimal_ > > NTFS takes any. It is happy with octal, decimal, and hex. The ntfs > driver uses linux/lib/vsprintf.c::simple_strtoul() with a zero base which > autodetects which base to use so if you use umask=0222 it will take this > as octal and if you use umask=222 it will take this as decimal and if you > use 0x222 it will take this as decimal. ^^^^^^^ hexadecimal > I do not see what is wrong with that. It behaves exactly like I would > expect it to. Maybe I have strange expectations? (-; Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov (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/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/