From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:38262 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932720AbaGPL2Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:28:16 -0400 Message-Id: <1405509773.32592.142240757.286353E5@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Benno Schulenberg To: Karel Zak Cc: "Util-Linux" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain In-Reply-To: <20140715105920.GS30288@x2.net.home> References: <1405350470.21924.141447857.78268FC5@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20140715105920.GS30288@x2.net.home> Subject: Re: some comments about the new cfdisk Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:22:53 +0200 Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014, at 12:59, Karel Zak wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:07:50PM +0200, Benno Schulenberg wrote: > > Running cfdisk without an argument no longer works - it just > > blurts out the usage text, instead of picking the first and only > > hard drive in the system. > > Yes, this is expected change. I think it's better to force > users to type the disk path than hardcode "sda" to the code, > but I have no strong opinion about it... no problem to change it. It would be nice to have the old behaviour back. Either that, or show an error message saying "expecting a device argument" instead of blasting out the entire usage text. > > I have two megabytes of free space at the tail of the disk. If > > with the old cfdisk I delete the last partition, it will create > > a single expanse of free space. But with the new cfdisk it will > > then have two free spaces: > > > > >> `-Free space 282779648 312576704 29797057 14.2G > > Free space 312578048 312581807 3760 1.9M > > I guess the last partition is a logical partition. It's because > the extended partition (container for logical partitions) has > explicitly specified size and the new cfdisk does not change the > size. Yes, I figured that out too, after a while. > It would be possible to add some extra optimization for MBR to > enlarge/reduce the extended partition if there is a free space behind > the partition and no possibility to create another primary partition. > Not sure... I'll think about it. Don't bother for now. Somehow the current way feels more precise. Benno -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be