From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IZDnZ-0004u3-6U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:50:05 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IZDnX-0004tr-Bz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:50:04 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IZDnX-0004to-6t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:50:03 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>) id 1IZDnW-0005Ho-MO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:50:03 -0400
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:48:55 +0100 (BST)
From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vvfat mbr fixes
In-Reply-To: <219e947f0709221443l494e4c46w6efafce989dbb867@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709222342190.28395@racer.site>
References: <219e947f0709221443l494e4c46w6efafce989dbb867@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi,

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:

> I've been having problems using vvfat virtual block device. Even linux 
> fdisk was able to find problems with it. The reason turned out to be 
> simple, MBR have bogus parameters.

Thanks for doing this; I did not find any time for that.

Overall, I like what you did, but here are some comments (if you would 
have inlined the patch, I would have commented with references):

- I like the convert_sector2CHS() function, although I would have named it 
  sector2CHS() for brevity (although the pretty magic -- or unintuitive 
  -- detection if lba is needed would have to be done differently, which 
  I maintain would be better),

- you write the NT-ID byte-per-byte, whereas I would have used strcpy() 
  for clarity,

- I'd have introduced a member nt_id instead of hardcoding an offset into 
  the "ignored" part, and

- fat_type == 12 and lba does not make sense, or does it?

Thanks,
Dscho