Re: [Libcdio-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Add case insensitive _cdio_stricmp and _cdio_strnicmp function calls

[Pete Batard]

Hi Rocky,

On 2024.01.28 23:37, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> With respect to this patch, the only nitpick I have is that we should add a
> comment for the new functions, even if it is something as basic as "case
> insensitive version of _cdio_strcmp / _cdio_strncmp" respectively.
> I don't mind adding that as a commit after the patch in a git branch and
> others can comment how well I do at getting the comment right.

I should be able to get this sorted in the next proposal I send.

> Do I have it correct that this patch has no comments/controversy aside from
> the small one I raised?

You would have been correct... if Thomas hadn't pointed out that the 
UEFI specs add an unofficial extension to El-Torito to handle the case 
of images that need to occupy more than 0xffff virtual sectors (i.e. 
images larger than 32 MB).

I think that both Thomas and I feel that this is important enough that 
the patch should be amended to cover that case.

> Overall, I'd like to get those patches without any controversy into the
> code soon.

Then please expect a v2 from me soon...ish (possibly right after this 
reply... or in the next few hours)

> I am not 100% certain which ones have disputes in them. Is it
> just Patch 2?

Yes, it's really just patch 2.

> As for the cut and paste holdover typo in patch 2, sure I have no problem
> in trying to fix, and again others can double check whether I got this
> correct.

I'll fix this in v2.

> As for the ones that are where there is some disagreement, I'd like to
> narrow things down as much as possible.
>
> If I have it correct, there were certain issues where there could be more
> done, but Pete does not feel a need to do that, or what he calls the 1%
> situation. A suggestion is to start with what Pete has since this is an
> improvement and addresses a real need. Then if Thomas you have the
> inclination and time to make more perfect, that can be done as a follow on.
>
> As I understand it though, the main disagreement is about what the default
> behavior should be. I don't see it that bad to start out one way and if
> that becomes onerous switch to the other way though.
>
> Thoughts and guidance here?

Well, I pretty much have a v2 ready that'll take care of the UEFI 
exception. I will comment however that I am going to continue to take 
deliberate shortcuts with this, to drastically reduce the amount of 
changes needed (and the amount of formal processing needed) to cover 
what I fully expect to be the 99.9% scenarios we will be faced with 
(mostly because, if I have to submit a patch that does formal parsing, 
you're not going to get that anytime soon).

Regards,

/Pete