Re: Bug: 2.6.11.8 msdos.c

[Bill Davidsen]

James Dingwall wrote:
> > * James Dingwall (james.dingwall@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >
> > > Using vanilla 2.6.11.8 I get a "Cannot open initial 
> >
> > console" on boot,
> >
> > > 2.6.11.7 was fine.  I have removed the patches to 
> >
> > fs/partitions/msdos.c and
> >
> > > this has fixed my problem.  I've read the discussion on 
> >
> > this patch but it
> >
> > > doesn't indicate that this problem may occur so there is no 
> >
> > suggested
> >
> > > solution.  I have attached my .config and my partition 
> >
> > layout is below, I
> >
> > > can provide any other information that might be useful.  
> >
> > I'm not on the list
> >
> > > so plase Cc, I will follow the thread in the archives too.
> >
> > Thanks for the report James.  To be clear, you simply backed out the
> > following: (I ask partly because this got merged in as part of the i2c
> > sysfs ChangeSet, odd)
> >
> > ===== fs/partitions/msdos.c 1.26 vs 1.27 =====
> > --- 1.26/fs/partitions/msdos.c	2004-11-09 12:43:17 -08:00
> > +++ 1.27/fs/partitions/msdos.c	2005-03-07 20:41:42 -08:00
> > @@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ parse_extended(struct parsed_partitions 
> > 		 */
> > 		for (i=0; i<4; i++, p++) {
> > 			u32 offs, size, next;
> > +
> > +			if (SYS_IND(p) == 0)
> > +				continue;
> > 			if (!NR_SECTS(p) || is_extended_partition(p))
> > 				continue;
> >
> > @@ -430,6 +433,8 @@ int msdos_partition(struct parsed_partit
> > 	for (slot = 1 ; slot <= 4 ; slot++, p++) {
> > 		u32 start = START_SECT(p)*sector_size;
> > 		u32 size = NR_SECTS(p)*sector_size;
> > +		if (SYS_IND(p) == 0)
> > +			continue;
> > 		if (!size)
> > 			continue;
> > 		if (is_extended_partition(p)) {
>
>
> Yes, this is the patch that I backed out.
>
>
> > > Disk /dev/hda: 30.0 GB, 30020272128 bytes
> > > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3649 cylinders
> > > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
> > >
> > >   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
> > > /dev/hda1   *           1        1797    14434371   83  Linux
> > > /dev/hda2            1798        3649    14876190    5  Extended
> > > /dev/hda5            1798        1860      506016    0  Empty
> > > /dev/hda6            1861        1892      257008+  83  Linux
> > > /dev/hda7            1893        1924      257008+  83  Linux
> > > /dev/hda8            1925        2049     1004031   82  
> >
> > Linux swap / Solaris
> >
> > > /dev/hda9            2050        2112      506016    0  Empty
> > > /dev/hda10           2113        2611     4008186   83  Linux
> > > /dev/hda11           2612        2861     2008093+  83  Linux
>
>
> Andries' hint about changing the partition types to !0 is a fix for the
> problem.

What is the reason for the patch in the first place? Obviously it's 
intended to do something, or not do something bad, but what's wrong with 
a reserved partition?

I looked at the rest of msdos.c and it wasn't blindingly clear what the 
original intent was. A partition type of zero is unusual, but it's not 
illegal, is it? (as in violates some standard)

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/