[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPT probe: signature vs checksum
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: GPT probe: signature vs checksum |
Date: |
Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:19:04 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.17i |
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 03:05:54PM -0600, address@hidden wrote:
> > Can I contribute somehow to the spec?
>
> Probably. http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm has the spec.
> http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/feedback.htm is to submit
> feedback, but I've never gotten a response out of that.
>
> address@hidden and address@hidden are two people at
> Intel working on IA-64 Linux, and it was Asit that first contacted me about
> the PMBR change. That's your best bet.
Thanks.
> - if (ped_device_read(dev, legacyMbr, 0, 1)) {
> + if (ped_device_read(dev, &legacyMbr, 0, 1)) {
> I think.
Right ;) I haven't compiled yet... I'm making MAJOR changes to it.
(So far the 1.5.x version, is about 800 lines shorter than the 1.4.x one!)
> > i.e. define GPT present (possibly corrupt) vs GPT valid.
>
> That looks good to me.
Cool :)
> Then the test for valid GPT really moves into
> gpt_open() calling gpt_read(), where if one is valid and the other invalid,
> it gets fixed up automatically.
Exactly.
> I don't think the EFI Spec would need to be
> changed here then, it's an implementation detail that we probe before
> testing for valid. OK.
:)
> FYI, I'm testing a kernel patch from Red Hat that will allow us to drop the
> #if linux read/write last odd sector of a disk kludge from parted. The
> kludge gets moved into the kernel. :-)
Ah, thanks :)
Andrew