Phillip Susi wrote: > On 01/11/2012 01:37 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Phillip Susi wrote: >>> _blkpg_add_partition was throwing an exception if it failed to add the new >>> partition, in addition to _disk_sync_part_table throwing one, and then >>> bailing out. Instead of bailing out, just log the error for reporting >>> later and continue. >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> Would you please at least outline a test case for this? > > My initial thought was that it should never happen, so there can't be > a test for it, but it seems that this change has actually broken > t2310-dos-extended-2-sector-min-offset.sh. It seems that this test > was not testing a behavior of parted, but rather testing what I
That test is testing parted behavior. Before the change that provoked the addition of that test, parted would allow one to violate the 2-sector rule. This test ensures that parted now rejects such attempts. If someday the linux kernel changes how it treats such attempts, then we'll adjust the test. > consider to be a bug in the linux kernel. The add was failing because > BLKPG_ADD_PARTITION was being rejected by the kernel for not leaving > room for LILO, and this test was verifying that this behavior. I > don't think the kernel should be failing that request, and the parted > test suite should not be testing for it. The change was prompted by a real bug report. Would you like to propose an alternate fix or a change to the test of that new behavior?
