From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv0wj-0003y6-LC for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:52:18 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv0wb-0003w5-Mu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:52:09 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv0wR-0003rI-2l for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:52:02 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dv0wP-0003ms-Rp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:51:57 -0400 Received: from [212.43.237.68] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Dv0pL-0004Ji-8i for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:44:39 -0400 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A3AFED3E0A for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:35:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 19 Jul 05 22:35:03 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:34:37 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200507182240.09558.okuji@enbug.org> <87k6jnonbr.fsf@student.han.nl> In-Reply-To: <87k6jnonbr.fsf@student.han.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507200034.37604.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: more info on bugs 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: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:52:12 -0000 On Monday 18 July 2005 22:45, Marco Gerards wrote: > It was reported to me, but I was not able to reproduce this yet. If I > can get a bigger harddisk I will try to fix this bug. OK. > A few 100MBs. I tested this, and I got "ext2fs doesn't support tripple indirect blocks". Is this what you mean? How difficult is it to fix this bug? Isn't it enough to just add one more read? > Yes, but not a specific one. For example there were some bugs in some > misc.c functions which are used by the filesystems. They relied on > broken behavior so there might be some bugs in the other (non-ext2) > filesystems. I should do some extensive testing. If you can give me more specific information, I can take a look. Okuji