this seems reasonable to me. why don't you stick it in libutil?
> As this is needed to get netatalk to build again on HEAD, I'd like
> to commit this in the next few days.
this is what i'm talking about about using a different name for
the new syscall that takes totally different arguments.
is
> > this patch seems to fix my problem. i've moved the call to fix
> > the label into rf_reasonable_label() itself, right before the
> > valid return, and made the fix up also fix the partitionSizeHi.
> >
> > greg, what do you think?
>
> Looks good to me. Go for it.
oh, it isn't. supposed to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:57:49 +1100
matthew green wrote:
>
> this patch seems to fix my problem. i've moved the call to fix
> the label into rf_reasonable_label() itself, right before the
> valid return, and made the fix up also fix the partitionSizeHi.
>
> greg, what do you think?
Looks good
this patch seems to fix my problem. i've moved the call to fix
the label into rf_reasonable_label() itself, right before the
valid return, and made the fix up also fix the partitionSizeHi.
greg, what do you think?
.mrg.
Index: rf_netbsdkintf.c
