Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:10:38AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> However, do you really intend to remove those check_partition_consistency >> calls? That seems like it would weaken the test unnecessarily. > > As far as I can tell there isn't a consensus on what is valid for PC98 > so I opted to just make it signature based. > >> >> Also, would you please change the name to pc98_valid_ipl_signature? >> That will make it more readable for me. With the "_check_" name, >> I find that I have to read the code to determine the semantics. >> While with "_valid_...", it's obviously a boolean. >> And then you can change the last four lines to be simply this: >> >> return pc98_valid_ipl_signature (&part_table); >> > > Actually, _check_ is consistent with the code (eg. the check_magic > code). > >> Finally, please always configure with >> >> ./configure --enable-gcc-warnings >> >> That would have highlighted some unused variables and the unused function. > > Sorry about that, I build it using the fedora build scripts and missed > that one. Enclosed is an updated patch.
Thanks. With that, all's well. I've applied that one (amended to mention the bug-fix in NEWS) along with your corresponding test-adding change-set: diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS index 293dad8..b7fb56b 100644 --- a/NEWS +++ b/NEWS @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ GNU parted NEWS -*- outline -*- libparted: works with a two-component linux kernel version number like 3.0 [bug present since the beginning] + libparted: strengthen the pc98 test so that it is much less likely to + cause an MSDOS partition table to be mistakenly identified as pc98. + [bug present since the beginning] + * Noteworthy changes in release 3.0 (2011-05-30) [stable] _______________________________________________ bug-parted mailing list bug-parted@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted