From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MTlno-0000Lo-38 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:52 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTlnm-0000KV-DP for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:50 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTlnh-0000Fz-Eb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:49 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40830 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTlnh-0000Fu-BA for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:45 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:11124) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTlng-0000gu-QO for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:45 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2009 20:04:42 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.151] (c-69-141-194-35.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [69.141.194.35]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBA3434C6A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:15:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:04:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1248307475.2369.5.camel@ct> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix chainloding + Chainloading into logical partitions X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:04:51 -0000 On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 00:18 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > There is strictly no need to do this restructuration. The real bug is > different fix would be setting dev->disk->partition to 0 before > calling grub_disk_read and restoring it afterwards. This part of code > is changed anyway with my nested partition patch and I was hoping it > could be applied quickly. Could you test nestpart branch of my > repository? I'm not comfortable to approve a 60k long patch that reorganizes the code and fixed numerous bugs in the same time. I'm sure bugs can be fixed separately. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin