Re: [PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4

2000-09-07 Thread Andries Brouwer
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 07:45:48AM +0200, Luca Montecchiani wrote: > > I think I prefer the current version over your patched version. > > But will probably change my mind when many people complain. > > Why have *fdisk or lilo trouble ? I don't know whether lilo has trouble. But if it has that

Re: [PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4

2000-09-06 Thread Luca Montecchiani
Andries Brouwer wrote: : Thanks for your exhaustive explanation as usual. > I think I prefer the current version over your patched version. > But will probably change my mind when many people complain. Why have different behavior ? Why have *fdisk or lilo trouble ? I still didn't see the gain

Re: [PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4

2000-09-06 Thread Andries Brouwer
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 12:42:42AM +0200, Luca Montecchiani wrote: > few ours ago I discover that my kernel 2.4.0-test8pre5 was unable to > correctly identify the geometry of my second ide HD (*), Always remember: a disk does not have a geometry. > this is very bad Why precisely? > and fdisk

[PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4

2000-09-06 Thread Luca Montecchiani
Hi, few ours ago I discover that my kernel 2.4.0-test8pre5 was unable to correctly identify the geometry of my second ide HD (*), this is very bad and fdisk come out with a lot of warnings, see: Disk /dev/hdc: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 6296 cylinders Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes Device