From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1ESNC7-0007Ea-B0 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:18:03 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESNC3-0007DB-K1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:59 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESNC1-0007Cm-2N for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:58 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESNC0-0007Ch-JQ for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:56 -0400 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ESNC0-0004JR-Gj for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:17:56 -0400 Received: from ASSP-nospam (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80863C72B3D1 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:49:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by ASSP-nospam ; 20 Oct 05 01:49:08 -0000 From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:17:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200510150147.45096.T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> <200510151934.11795.okuji@enbug.org> <200510161024.54262.T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200510161024.54262.T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510200117.53400.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: gzio is broken (fix) 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:18:00 -0000 On Sunday 16 October 2005 11:24 am, Timothy Baldwin wrote: > The patch fixes it: Thank you. I have checked it in right now. > Did you apply my test patch and use a test file with an uncompressed size > larger than 32KiB? Probably it was too small. Okuji