From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1Tx2uQ-0001Dx-5N for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:58:34 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56939) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx2uN-0001Dq-V1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:58:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx2uM-0002rp-QS for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:58:31 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f176.google.com ([209.85.215.176]:48409) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx2uM-0002rd-H3 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:58:30 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id a13so1870984eaa.7 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:58:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=/h+RlEHGguimPVKZMztbf7AckW/P0L6scRF06Hj+zUA=; b=OLfoVz/7878dvq+xNdm41WOeG9Ij+vWy9qLLzHSYWPvA9KHXvyaxRXtEdO1QE76xh9 nD+ZnIFnabQe2xGVcoqXY4FHjCrJ+DL47Z9j7g9wmv+/vehe2UOsTW++TgB86nKbPESq LvP3PBzie2zMS6ZwuSHj9RQIopK7pH4RgzWZt/5XFTBeSGHIZ/pNQq+vPBv9zDUfFTOC +Db3cDAEPKDvi07ssuD/joEV4nDrEzQaFyb3U/Olgq2EK8wczH+OmgJxCsJXWqvwguTT 3+RDEEqbLamDxeQ2CN1kl/zF/B7SbhC2ThcgssBFMdrbIQoD3Bej6kQ+TVY4ZLHvYbm0 f+jg== X-Received: by 10.14.219.3 with SMTP id l3mr52819072eep.5.1358719109520; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from debian.x201.phnet (90-165.78-83.cust.bluewin.ch. [83.78.165.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t4sm349350eel.0.2013.01.20.13.58.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:58:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50FC6882.3030703@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:58:26 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbmVua28=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GNU GRUB Subject: Re: Should LDM check be less aggressive? References: <20121121065833.7497e7e8@opensuse.site> In-Reply-To: <20121121065833.7497e7e8@opensuse.site> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4B8BFCE770BDAA3A5D205CC8" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.215.176 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:58:33 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4B8BFCE770BDAA3A5D205CC8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 21.11.2012 03:58, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > + if (p->msdostype =3D=3D GRUB_PC_PARTITION_TYPE_SFS) SFS is confusing as the partition in question isn't SFS, it just happens that LDM and SFS ids collide. Also another problem is that of booting in case of corrupted msdos table if LDM is intact but given that the kernels won't be able to recognize such a case anyway it's a minor one. Could you update the patch not to mention SFS? --=20 Regards Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko --------------enig4B8BFCE770BDAA3A5D205CC8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREKAAYFAlD8aIIACgkQNak7dOguQgkQ9AEAr0hz8Ku9/LLpmnAmkLyy+x06 tPP+fD3aVpc6YY8ES6MA/AxEosBuIpYcH54PkBB7YjyGYvdQ22S72wyl+YLqOuFR =Y6s0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4B8BFCE770BDAA3A5D205CC8--