Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block +mydata->sect_size);
memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr,mydata->sect_size);
}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d,DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Thanks,