Phillip Susi wrote: > On 8/8/2012 11:23 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Sorry about the delay. I see that the most recent patch had a >> misleading comment for which you proposed wording to correct it, >> but no amended patch. Would you please resend a complete, corrected >> patch? > > That would be the fix for optimal IO alignment. I'll update the > comment and resubmit the patch for that as well, but the series I was > referring to was "dmraid fixes" on Jan 8, specifically "refactor > device-mapper partition sync code". > > Looking back over that thread, the unresolved issue appears to be with > t2310-dos-extended-2-sector-min-offset.sh. I discovered that the test > is fundamentally broken because it appears to be supposed to validate > that parted refuses to create an extended partition without the 2 > sector gap for LILO, but in fact, parted happily creates such a > partition, but emits an error when it tries to sync the kernel > partition table to what it just wrote to disk, and it is that error > that this test is looking for. > > I had generated a patch to fix parted to avoid the error syncing the > kernel, which would render t2310-dos-extended-2-sector-min-offset.sh > obsolete, but asked whether you wanted to go that route, or to > actually change parted to refuse to create such a partition. I see no > reason why parted should refuse to create such a partition since the > kernel is happy with it. Unless you object, I think I will rebase and > resubmit the whole series with the patch fixing the syncing and > removing t2310-dos-extended-2-sector-min-offset.sh.
Thank you. Yes, that sounds like the right approach.
