[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Parted-maintainers] A possible parted bug
From: |
Sven Luther |
Subject: |
Re: [Parted-maintainers] A possible parted bug |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:10:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:40:30AM +0300, Tapio Kelloniemi wrote:
> Hi
>
> I would have filled a bug report on your bug tracking system, but it
> uses JavaScript, so I e-mail.
I has an email interface, simply send the email to address@hidden,
with :
Package: parted
Version: 1.6.24-1
or whatever.
Mmm, maybe you are even not using debian, and thus this is the wrong mailing
list, it is probable that you want to post to address@hidden or something
similar.
> I'm not sure if this bug is in parted, since parted and BIOS seem
> to disagree about the disk geometry.
>
> System configuration:
> parted 1.6.24
> linux 2.6.11.12
> disk Samsung Spinpoint SerialAta 80GB
> Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0,0,0 - 9733,116,62
> BIOS cylinder,head,sector geometry: 9733,255,63. Each cylinder is 8225kB.
>
> The following steps result in an assertion failure:
> > mklabel msdos
> > mkpart extended 0 -1
> > mkpart logical ext2 0 5gb
> > mkpart logical ext2 5gb 5.5gb
> Assertion (start <= end) at parted.c:251 in function
> snap_to_boundaries() failed.
>
> After Ignoring or Cancelling:
> Error: Can't have the end before the start!
>
> But in any case:
> > print
> Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0kB - 80GB
> Disk label type: msdos
> Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
> 1 1kB 80GB 80GB extended
> 5 32kB 5001MB 5001MB logical
> 6 5001MB 5009MB 8193kB logical
>
> Reversing the order of the two mkpart logicals fixes the problem, but
> the resulting partition table looks identical (in compact unit mode).
>
> Another assertion failure is triggered by:
> > mklabel msdos
> > mkpart extended 0 -1
> > mkpart logical ext2 0 3072mb
> > mkpart logical ext2 3072mb 5120mb
> Assertion (metadata_length > 0) at disk_dos.c:1962 in function
> add_logical_part_metadata() failed.
>
> If printing is attempted, the same assertion fails again.
>
> Hope this was useful. I'm not a member of list, so please CC to me.
Mmm, this is definitively an upstream issue, i will forward this to the right
place.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
- Re: [Parted-maintainers] A possible parted bug,
Sven Luther <=