[parted-devel] [PATCH 04/14] do not discard bootcode from extended partition

[Petr Uzel]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:28:02AM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:30:52PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > Joel Granados Moreno wrote:
> > > > From: Petr Uzel <petr.uzel at suse.cz>
> > > >
> > > > * libparted/labels/dos.c (write_ext_table): Do not discard
> > > > bootcode from extended partition on msdos label when some of
> > > > the logical partitions are changed.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Petr Uzel <petr.uzel at suse.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > >  libparted/labels/dos.c |    6 ++++--
> > > >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/libparted/labels/dos.c b/libparted/labels/dos.c
> > > > index f219e7d..4e308fe 100644
> > > > --- a/libparted/labels/dos.c
> > > > +++ b/libparted/labels/dos.c
> > > > @@ -1060,7 +1060,8 @@ write_ext_table (const PedDisk* disk,
> > > >
> > > >  	lba_offset = ped_disk_extended_partition (disk)->geom.start;
> > > >
> > > > -	memset (&table, 0, sizeof (DosRawTable));
> > > > +	ped_device_read (disk->dev, &table, sector, 1);
> > > > +	memset (&(table.partitions), 0, 4 * sizeof(DosRawPartition));
> > > >  	table.magic = PED_CPU_TO_LE16 (MSDOS_MAGIC);
> > > >
> > > >  	if (!fill_raw_part (&table.partitions[0], logical, sector))
> > > > @@ -1094,7 +1095,8 @@ write_empty_table (const PedDisk* disk, PedSector sector)
> > > >
> > > >  	PED_ASSERT (disk != NULL, return 0);
> > > >
> > > > -	memset (&table, 0, sizeof (DosRawTable));
> > > > +	ped_device_read (disk->dev, &table, sector, 1);
> > > > +	memset (&(table.partitions), 0, 4 * sizeof(DosRawPartition));
> > > >  	table.magic = PED_CPU_TO_LE16 (MSDOS_MAGIC);
> > > >
> > > >  	return ped_device_write (disk->dev, (void*) &table, sector, 1);
> > > 
> > > This has the same problem I mentioned for 1/14:
> > > it introduces new code that depends on fixed-size (512-byte) sectors.
> > > Thus it conflicts with changes on "next" that eliminated the 512-byte
> > > limitation.
> > > 
> > > How about putting it on that branch instead?
> > 
> > 
> > Same answer as above....
> 
> Petr:
>     Do you have any problem with this?

I don't see how could applying this patch for 1.9.0 break anything.
Even if it conflicts with some changes from next, we could adapt it
for the next release later, couldn't we?

But if you decide not to apply it for 1.9.0, I'm fine with that.

-- 
Best regards / s pozdravem

Petr Uzel, Packages maintainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.                          e-mail: puzel at suse.cz
Lihovarská 1060/12                          http://www.suse.cz
190 00 Prague 9                             
Czech Republic