James Dingwall wrote:
* James Dingwall ([email protected]) wrote:
Using vanilla 2.6.11.8 I get a "Cannot open initial
console" on boot,
2.6.11.7 was fine. I have removed the patches to
fs/partitions/msdos.c and
this has fixed my problem. I've read the discussion on
this patch but it
doesn't indicate that this problem may occur so there is no
suggested
solution. I have attached my .config and my partition
layout is below, I
can provide any other information that might be useful.
I'm not on the list
so plase Cc, I will follow the thread in the archives too.
Thanks for the report James. To be clear, you simply backed out the
following: (I ask partly because this got merged in as part of the i2c
sysfs ChangeSet, odd)
===== fs/partitions/msdos.c 1.26 vs 1.27 =====
--- 1.26/fs/partitions/msdos.c 2004-11-09 12:43:17 -08:00
+++ 1.27/fs/partitions/msdos.c 2005-03-07 20:41:42 -08:00
@@ -114,6 +114,9 @@ parse_extended(struct parsed_partitions
*/
for (i=0; i<4; i++, p++) {
u32 offs, size, next;
+
+ if (SYS_IND(p) == 0)
+ continue;
if (!NR_SECTS(p) || is_extended_partition(p))
continue;
@@ -430,6 +433,8 @@ int msdos_partition(struct parsed_partit
for (slot = 1 ; slot <= 4 ; slot++, p++) {
u32 start = START_SECT(p)*sector_size;
u32 size = NR_SECTS(p)*sector_size;
+ if (SYS_IND(p) == 0)
+ continue;
if (!size)
continue;
if (is_extended_partition(p)) {
Yes, this is the patch that I backed out.
Disk /dev/hda: 30.0 GB, 30020272128 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3649 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 1797 14434371 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 1798 3649 14876190 5 Extended
/dev/hda5 1798 1860 506016 0 Empty
/dev/hda6 1861 1892 257008+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda7 1893 1924 257008+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda8 1925 2049 1004031 82
Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/hda9 2050 2112 506016 0 Empty
/dev/hda10 2113 2611 4008186 83 Linux
/dev/hda11 2612 2861 2008093+ 83 Linux
Andries' hint about changing the partition types to !0 is a fix for the
problem.
What is the reason for the patch in the first place? Obviously it's
intended to do something, or not do something bad, but what's wrong with
a reserved partition?
I looked at the rest of msdos.c and it wasn't blindingly clear what the
original intent was. A partition type of zero is unusual, but it's not
illegal, is it? (as in violates some standard)
--
-bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
