> > Speaking of which, does anyone know how much of a pain it would be to
> > implement Win95/NT4.0 style long names under msdosfs?
> 
> Yes, I should think the gentleman who did that should know exactly how much
> of a pain it was.

Thanks for the flowers, but it really wasn't that hard :-).

> (Note, by the way, that NT and Win95 mangle long names differently!!!)

What makes you think that NT and Win96 mangle long names differently? There is
no difference (as far as I can tell from quite a few experiments) in the way
these are handled.

There is, however, a field in the (short name) directory entry, that is
(apparently) reserved (and ignored) in the Win95 definition, but for which
NT chkdsk insists to be zero. When I implemented the Win95 extensions (which
apart from long filenames also support creation date/time and access date),
I took the liberty to write access time to this field (since it is next to the
access time field). While this is field is ignored in Win95 and in even in the
NT4.0 graphical disk scan utility, it looks like this was too much a freedom
I took here. The field is used for something different in the upcoming 32-bit
FAT format that M$ is defining. So we'll have to drop the recording of access
times for msdosfs. I'll fix this in the near future (if noone else beats me
on it).
--
ws@TooLs.DE     (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) 	+49-228-985800