Re: Typo in libparted

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:00:42AM -0600, Harley D. Eades III wrote:
> Sven Luther <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Because Andrew reimplemented it.
> > 
> > > Patch:
> > > > +       if ((!strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FAT", 3)
> > > > +            && strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x40, "SBML", 4))
> > > >             || !strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x52, "FAT", 3))
> > > >                 return 0;
> > > 
> > > disk_dos.c:
> > > if ((!strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FAT", 3)
> > >      && strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FATSBML", 7) != 0)
> > >      || !strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x52, "FAT", 3))
> > >          return 0;
> > > 
> > > What is differ from FATSBML vs. SBML?
> > 
> > I feel strange, as i understand the original code looks for FAT at 0x36, and
> > then for SBML at 0x40. The new code looks for FATSBML at 0x36, which means 
> > the
> > SBML will start at 0x39. Maybe SBML is written two times in the MBR table ?
> Maybe, is the original author of the patch around?  Or do you know of any 
> documentation 
> covering SBML?

No idea what this stuff is, but i will ask around about this. CCing him here.

Matt, could you have a look at the above discussion, and enlighten us with
your wisdom about this SMBL issue ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther