Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On 8 Jul 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> >Note that the boot block isn't used by the filesystem itself, at least
> >not for ext2. It's worse for FAT, since it's boot block and
> >superblock are co-located, but on the other hand you're much less
>
> ext2 superblock will be co-located in the same buffer cache object of the
> boot sector if blocksize of ext2 is >1k. That's not a problem with ext2 as
> far as bootloader writes to the same blockdevice that the fs is using
> (since raw device will write inside the fs superblock cache with ext2). It
> become a problem if ext2 is >1k and grub writes to /dev/hda at offset
> 512bytes instead of /dev/hda1 at offset zero. I guess most other fs are
> caching the superblock using the buffer cache. (also this
> metadata-superblock/bootsector stuff is not changed in any way between
> 2.2.x and 2.4.x).
>
I see. Yes, Genesis writes to /dev/hda1, and if GRUB is writing to
/dev/hda then I would agree 100% that GRUB is buggy.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:11 EST