Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/libparted/labels/bsd.c b/libparted/labels/bsd.c
>> index 747a9c5..26a8b60 100644
>> --- a/libparted/labels/bsd.c
>> +++ b/libparted/labels/bsd.c
>> @@ -141,30 +142,45 @@ alpha_bootblock_checksum (char *boot) {
> <...>
>> static int
>> bsd_probe (const PedDevice *dev)
>> {
>> - char boot[512];
>> - BSDRawLabel *label;
>> + BSDRawLabel *partition;
>>
>> PED_ASSERT (dev != NULL, return 0);
>>
>> - if (dev->sector_size != 512)
>> + if (dev->sector_size < 512)
>> return 0;
>
> Shouldn't it be:
> if (dev->sector_size%512 != 0)
> return 0;
Thanks for looking at it, but no.
First, your replacement would mistakenly allow a dev->sector_size value
of 0 through. More importantly, there is already plenty of code (e.g.,
in linux.c) that ensures it is a multiple of 512, so it would be redundant
to check for that in each label/*.c's *_probe function.
BTW, there are still many functions that won't work with larger sector size.
For example, I've just noticed that bsd.c's _probe_and_add_boot_code
assumes 512-byte sectors, too, but it's not exercised by the label
reading/writing code that I'm using to test things in this first round.
_______________________________________________
parted-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
