Re: Typo in libparted

[Matt Kraai]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 07:52:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ? 

It's meant to deal with the Smart Boot Manager

 http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/

I generated the patch after looking at a partition table dump and the
Smart Boot Manager source code.

-- 
Matt