Hi! On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 04:15:04PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > No, I'm not. The only reason why there is a MagiC version of SPIN is that > Andreas Kromke has done the dirty work for me :-) Just a question in that context: Is the SPIN! code itself independet of the surrounding filesystem interface, i.e. is it only a matter of some #defines for you to either compile a MiNT or a MagiC version? > But just to make sure I understand the issue: each filesystem would have to > support Fattrib on the root cookie? Doesn't sound like a big deal... No, the filesystem would have to add the hidden-flag to the attr-field in the XATTR-structure it fills in its getxattr(). Of course, this would mean there had to be some way for the filesystem to ask the kernel whether it should do that, depending on what filesystems the user doesn't want to see. > Hmm, this would restrict the solution just to "standard" drives, for some > XFSses it couldn't work... Of course. But AFAIR, the original intention was to just hide filesystems that usually appear as drive letters in U:\ But it wouldn't be too much of a problem to extend my proposition to handle all filesystem roots. > In that case the "problem" can be resolved even easier by renaming U:\a to > U:\.a, correct? That's already been suggested, but for some reason those who cried loudest for getting rid of GEMDOS drives didn't accept this simple solution (can't remember the exact reason, maybe because they are not really gone this way, but that would also hold true for my f_xattr()-proposition). Ciao Thomas -- Thomas Binder (Gryf @ IRCNet) gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de PGP-key available on request! binder@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Attachment:
pgpW_bMtBV6hw.pgp
Description: PGP signature