[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: dos filesystem check

From: Richard Hirst
Subject: Re: dos filesystem check
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:52:07 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.24i

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 10:15:36AM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> Definitely a bug in mkdosfs... MS s/w might corrupt/misinterpret
> the mkdosfs file system.

So parted should not ignore it in script mode, as it does now?

> > Also, having decided there is a bug, parted really shouldn't exit with
> > code 0.
> Weird... it should!  Could you please debug this?  I can't reproduce
> (easily).  If it's too much trouble for you, I can investigate.

I asume you mean it shouldn't exit with code 0...

I can't reproduce the "you have found a bug" problem atm, will
investigate if/when I can (but see likely explanation below).

Looking at exit codes in general though, still on parted 1.4:


3 of the "goto error" should be "goto error_done_ui", I think.


"if (!dev)" needs to return non-zero so if you pass a bad device
name to parted in a script, the script can tell.

When an exception is thrown for my partition size / filesystem size
mismatch, it has Ignore and Cancel options.
For script mode parted/ui.c:exception_handler() will return
PED_EXCEPTION_UNHANDLED.  fat_boot_sector_analyse() will see that the
geom is bigger than the filesystem and decide it isn't a problem.
Hence the exit code of 0.  Guess that might be ok; seems a bit odd to
issue a warning and then ignore it anyway in script mode.

Now that I'm not getting the "you found a bug", I get a further
warning on this FAT fs which was created with mkdosfs:

address@hidden:/build/parted/parted-1.4.24.ori# parted -s /dev/sdc check 1
Warning: Partition size (64197 sectors) and filesystem size (64196 sectors) do 
not match.
Warning: File system doesn't have expected sizes for Windows to like it.  
Cluster size is 2k (0k expected); number of clusters is 16009 (63666 expected); 
size of FATs is 63 sectors (249 expected).
address@hidden:/build/parted/parted-1.4.24.ori# echo $?

Note "(0k expected)", and again a return code of 0.

In this case the return certainly shouldn't be 0, as the exception
wasn't handled.  This is because parted/parted.c:do_check() ignores the
return code from ped_file_system_check() and always returns success.

As for the return of zero when an EXCEPTION_BUG is reported, it was
thrown by fat_check() in this case, so if do_check() had checked the
return code, I would have got the non-zero exit code I expected.


reply via email to

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