bug-parted
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support f


From: Stephen Powell
Subject: Re: [parted-devel] [Parted-maintainers] Debian Bug #578097: No support for CMS-formatted disks
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:40:18 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:26:00 -0400 (EDT), Jim Meyering wrote:
> Stephen Powell wrote:
>>
>> OK, here is the new patch:
>>
>>    http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/parted_fba_diag_patch.diff
> 
> Thank you.
> I confirmed that it applies and doesn't cause any trouble on x86_64/linux.
> I'll actually look at the code and make sure tests pass on an
> s390x next week, assuming I can get access.

Debian came out with an update to parted version 2.3 recently.  Their package
version is called 2.3-4.  I fetched their updated source package and
reapplied the original four context diff patches to their respective
source files:

   http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/dasd.c.diff -> 
libparted/labels/dasd.c
   http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/fdasd.c.diff -> 
libparted/labels/fdasd.c
   http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.c.diff -> 
libparted/labels/vtoc.c
   http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.h.diff -> include/parted/vtoc.h

then applied the unified diff file

   http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/parted_fba_diag_patch.diff

and I ran into some apply problems.  The first four patches applied OK, but
the first two hunks of the unified patch did not apply for some reason.
Not knowing enough about the internals of the structure of a diff file to
fix the problem, I manually re-made the changes.  

In the process of checking out the results, I discovered a bug in my code.
In include/parted/vtoc.h, at or near line 105, as part of the structure
declaration for ldl_volume_label, there is a line that says

        char ldl_version;       /* Version number, valid for ldl format      */

It should say

        char ldl_version[1];    /* Version number, valid for ldl format      */

I was clued into this by a bunch of compile warnings in libparted/labels/dasd.c
complaining about conversion of integer to pointer without a cast,
or something like that.

So, how is your testing coming?

-- 
  .''`.     Stephen Powell    
 : :'  :
 `. `'`
   `-



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]