From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1PbAQH-0003cC-P3 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:23:57 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38843 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PbAQG-0003c1-1N for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:23:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbAQF-0002Gq-7i for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:23:55 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:39296) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbAQF-0002Gf-3g for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:23:55 -0500 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so17846124wwb.30 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:23:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rOt/EHCMw9gqU2797hXrCxRKQtsz6cytDMWjwyar/go=; b=tTf9dwuYrZgDU3+EBnb6aNS2vpx6PO8U1Q4Avy3fYesxRGs9wffBdY9wX/3ydF49ph o5RlWax3Wh4BwmIVGqWGpYmE0xf8coAFXalRiST5+bF7RXMdrwMBqayEM/OlOvrSaAzz DyLsSPGKtQ+bAURtyHgjmXn4cLdi491oTgJPI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=EJXuxr4k6KaI/MPis6zclXKjh/o/LI/spIXQpPfLlEU303h+/f3ElUB7NnVnq5XQCe /1a/uriS19NYyWWciPHzxiSA8DUn2t/4i81PBKTdGMQu5kotALTdwNN66KSudVsAiX3m kVmLTl1zd6gOC0VxCOTaXwC1wpblQCV9PRIqY= Received: by 10.227.132.209 with SMTP id c17mr15433625wbt.135.1294399433054; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [147.210.129.183] (laptop-147-210-129-183.labri.fr [147.210.129.183]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f35sm17570795wbf.14.2011.01.07.03.23.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:23:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D26F7C6.9080904@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:23:50 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?R3LDqWdvaXJlIFN1dHJl?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101130 Lightning/1.0b3pre Lanikai/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GNU GRUB References: <4D26DE69.5080106@gmail.com> <4D26EB2E.5030106@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D26EB2E.5030106@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: Reserved first sector for UFS X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:23:57 -0000 On 01/07/2011 11:30, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On 01/07/2011 10:35 AM, Grégoire Sutre wrote: >> Isn't the first sector reserved for the boot block in UFS? >> > Depends on OS: > > /* The blocks on which the superblock can be found. */ > static int sblocklist[] = { 128, 16, 0, 512, -1 }; Do you know of any OS that would put the superblock in sector 0? I googled a bit, but I couldn't find examples where UFS would not start with a boot sector (afaics, it usually starts with a bootblock area of at least 8KiB -- with OS-specific data in it, e.g. a disklabel). Grégoire