Joel Granados wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:55:07PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Joel Granados Moreno wrote:
>> > A 64K cluster size (128 sectors) for FAT16 is not common but is possible.
>> > Allow the use of 128 sector clusters instead of outputting an error.
>> > ---
>> > libparted/fs/fat/calc.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/libparted/fs/fat/calc.c b/libparted/fs/fat/calc.c
>> > index 026aec8..327ae67 100644
>> > --- a/libparted/fs/fat/calc.c
>> > +++ b/libparted/fs/fat/calc.c
>> > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ PedSector
>> > fat_max_cluster_size (FatType fat_type) {
>> > switch (fat_type) {
>> > case FAT_TYPE_FAT12: return 1; /* dunno... who cares? */
>> > - case FAT_TYPE_FAT16: return 32768/512;
>> > + case FAT_TYPE_FAT16: return 65536/512;
>> > case FAT_TYPE_FAT32: return 65536/512;
>> > }
>> > return 0;
>>
>> Is there a test case to exercise this?
>> Or a bug report?
>
> look at
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parted-devel/2009-June/002882.html
Ah, then we will mention that link in the commit log:
http://parted.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/207
> There is the bug report and there is the reason why I chose not to do a
> test for it. If you know of any way to avoid the situation described in
> the link, please share it with me :)
This is small and looks safe enough that
I'm willing to forgo the test.
_______________________________________________
parted-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
