[PATCH][PPC32] mktree fix

[PATCH][PPC32] mktree fix

[Andre' Draszik]

This one fixes mktree. The image size stored in the header is pretty off without
this patch. (yes, it can make a difference of upto almost 64k)

Signed-off-by: Andre' Draszik <andid@gmx.net>

diff -urN linuxppc-2.5.orig/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mktree.c linuxppc-2.5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mktree.c
--- linuxppc-2.5.orig/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mktree.c	2005-02-03 20:20:39.000000000 +0100
+++ linuxppc-2.5/arch/ppc/boot/utils/mktree.c	2005-02-06 03:13:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -113,7 +113,8 @@
  		exit(4);
  	}

-	nblks -= (64 * 1024) / IMGBLK;
+	nblks -= (64 * 1024 - sizeof (bt)) / IMGBLK;
+	bt.bb_num_512blocks = htonl(nblks + 1);

  	/* And away we go......
  	*/
@@ -122,7 +123,7 @@
  		exit(5);
  	}

-	while (nblks-- > 0) {
+	while (--nblks > 0) {
  		if (read(in_fd, tmpbuf, IMGBLK) < 0) {
  			perror("zImage read");
  			exit(5);

Re: [PATCH][PPC32] mktree fix

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:34:36AM +0100, Andre' Draszik wrote:

> This one fixes mktree. The image size stored in the header is pretty off 
> without
> this patch. (yes, it can make a difference of upto almost 64k)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andre' Draszik <andid@gmx.net>

With this wrong, what breaks?  Thanks.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

Re: [PATCH][PPC32] mktree fix

[Andre' Draszik]

Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:34:36AM +0100, Andre' Draszik wrote:
> 
> 
>>This one fixes mktree. The image size stored in the header is pretty off 
>>without
>>this patch. (yes, it can make a difference of upto almost 64k)
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Andre' Draszik <andid@gmx.net>
> 
> 
> With this wrong, what breaks?  Thanks.

I don't think anything breaks but if somebody relies on the image size 
stored in the header, up to almost 64k bytes of flash could be wasted.


a.

Re: [PATCH][PPC32] mktree fix

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Andre' Draszik wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:34:36AM +0100, Andre' Draszik wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This one fixes mktree. The image size stored in the header is pretty off 
> >>without
> >>this patch. (yes, it can make a difference of upto almost 64k)
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Andre' Draszik <andid@gmx.net>
> >
> >
> >With this wrong, what breaks?  Thanks.
> 
> I don't think anything breaks but if somebody relies on the image size 
> stored in the header, up to almost 64k bytes of flash could be wasted.

OK.  I'll push this up once 2.6.12-rc1 opens up.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/