[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Typo in libparted
From: |
Sven Luther |
Subject: |
Re: Typo in libparted |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:52:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
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