From: Pixel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux-2.4.0 breaks grub install into partition
Date: 12 Jul 2000 18:41:01 +0200
Here is a patch. It's quite simple: if type==0x55 then use sector 1 instead of
sector 0 as the partition table
I don't know how it goes along with stage1.5
Jeff Sheinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There were 10 partitions on /dev/sdb before I changed the
partition type of /dev/sdb2 from `a5' BSD/386 to `b5' Unknown, ie,
hidden. After hiding /dev/sdb2, there are now only 7 partitions.
BSD/386 gives a slice, aka is not a proper partition...
Thanks for the explanation, my previous email was quite offtopic, you only
care about partition table and boot sector issues (you don't care at all
about the rest of the fs).
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
can do privileged oprations just fine. If there are NO way to do so
via
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Writing through /dev/hda1 instead of /dev/hda when you want to write to
the bootsector of the first partition will fix your problems in 2.2.x and
2.4.x with ext2 (and I guess that's what lilo does just now). It shouldn't
be too hard for you to change
Hi,
Ok, this reminds me of something I noticed using the grub shell.
When the grub shell modifies the MBR for the `hide' or `unhide'
command it does not issue a `BLKRRPART ioctl()', unlike fdisk
which does issue `BLKRRPART ioctl()' when, eg, only the partition
type is modified.
The `BLKRRPART
Pixel writes:
Jeff Sheinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When the grub shell modifies the MBR for the `hide' or
`unhide' command it does not issue a `BLKRRPART ioctl()',
unlike fdisk which does issue `BLKRRPART ioctl()' when, eg,
only the partition type is modified.
The
Hello.
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 08:48:02PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
No. It's NOT GRUB's fault.
No, since you are using the functionality that was never promised to be
there. Example: fs has a perfect right to copy superblock out of the
buffer cache and slam it back whenever it wants,
On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 02:50:10PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
here's a problem we've stumbled across testing the 2.4.0 pre-kernels:
installing grub (0.5.94 if that should matter) into the boot block of a
partition mounted r/w no longer works; it flawlessly used to in 2.2.x .
A little
[ disclaimer: I have no idea what GRUS is ]
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
I don't think what GRUB does is a wrong thing basically. Some types
of software always need (or want) to access raw devices, for example,
FDISK programs, filesystem resizers, and fast database servers. So,
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrea Arcangeli
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
AA [ disclaimer: I have no idea what GRUS is ]
Ok. Then I'll write short explanation (enough to understood discussed
problem). GRUB is bootloader. It DOES NOT use linux's kernel to parse
partition tables and access disk via
OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
From: "H. Peter Anvin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux-2.4.0 breaks grub install into partition
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 12:12:48 -0700
As I said, the only operation that I think can be justified is accessing
the boot block (and that's only because
Hi all,
here's a problem we've stumbled across testing the 2.4.0 pre-kernels:
installing grub (0.5.94 if that should matter) into the boot block of a
partition mounted r/w no longer works; it flawlessly used to in 2.2.x .
A little investigation using strace and friends shows that grub
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Daniel Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Torsten,
I indeed stumbled into the same problem, and it seems to be GRUB's fault.
No. It's NOT GRUB's fault.
0.5.93.1 was working *flawlessly* for me, and then 0.5.94 stuffed
Perhaps I should comment on this...
From: Alexander Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux-2.4.0 breaks grub install into partition
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 20:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
No, since you are using the functionality that was never promised to be
there. Example: fs has a perfect right
14 matches
Mail list logo
