From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752654Ab0CKWke (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:40:34 -0500 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:33369 "EHLO mail.parknet.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751953Ab0CKWkd (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:40:33 -0500 From: OGAWA Hirofumi To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Daniel Taylor , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs/partition/msdos: Fix unusable extended partition for > 512B sector References: <3E0C3AE547FA504DA5E89EA5A24AC85803E2BD2D@wdscexbe01.sc.wdc.com> <20100301141335.395dc4c3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <873a0h1p2c.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <876358iehd.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <4B9430B6.701@zytor.com> <87pr3fd68r.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <4B9440FC.3090502@zytor.com> <87zl2j9muz.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87wrxkw52s.fsf_-_@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87sk88w4xk.fsf_-_@devron.myhome.or.jp> <3E0C3AE547FA504DA5E89EA5A24AC85803E2BD87@wdscexbe01.sc.wdc.com> <873a07oyts.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <3E0C3AE547FA504DA5E89EA5A24AC85803E2BD8E@wdscexbe01.sc.wdc.com> <87vdd2fqpr.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <4B996E58.6010407@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:40:30 +0900 In-Reply-To: <4B996E58.6010407@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:27:36 -0800") Message-ID: <87r5nqfpnl.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.93 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > On 03/11/2010 02:17 PM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> >> Those are all about the first (1/2) patch, not this second patch. >> Personally, I'm thinking we should apply the first patch as bugfix. >> >> I'm talking about only second (2/2) patch in here. >> > > The 2/2 patch seems to be a bug fix too; it implements the intent of the > original code as far as I can see. Yes, however the state is not so sure if compared to first patch. So I said, if we want, we can drop it (2/2), because it's not so sure to fix the real problem (bootloader's requirement). Even if we apply this patch too, it shouldn't introduce new problems though. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi