Stephen Powell wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:10:04 -0400 (EDT), Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> Thanks for preparing those. >> Can either of you outline a test for each that would fail before >> application of a patch and succeed after it? > > For the first problem, the invalid starting block for an LDL disk, > the failure would involve reporting an incorrect starting position, > an incorrect partition size, and not > recognizing any file system which might be on it, since it is > not pointing to the superblock. This occurs only on LDL disks > with a block size other than 4096.
Thanks. Good overview of what's needed. Can you give more detail? For example, how would you create an LDL disk with block size != 4096? > With the patch, the partition size > will be correct, the starting position will be correct, > and it will recognize the file system built on the > partition, if there is one. The command would be something like > > parted /dev/dasda print > > For the second problem, lack of recognition of CMS minidisks, the > above command will report Can you provide or tell how to construct a minimal example image? My goal is to write a portable shell script that triggers the flaw, and use that to show your fix solves the problem. > Error: /dev/dasda: unrecognised disk label > > if the patch is not on. If the patch is on, it will generate the > normal expected output for the above command. _______________________________________________ bug-parted mailing list bug-parted@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted