Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:36:23 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possible Bug in /proc/partitions ??
Message-ID:	<20050621093623.GA21869@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<4455 DOT 130 DOT 240 DOT 136 DOT 220 DOT 1119286173 DOT squirrel AT pinus> <42B7CC49 DOT 4090804 AT atomice DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<42B7CC49.4090804@atomice.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.2i

On Jun 21 09:14, Chris January wrote:
> Bengt-Arne Fjellner wrote:
> 
> > either /proc/prtitions has something wrong or i have.
> > This is how it looks.
> > $ cat /proc/partitions
> > major minor  #blocks  name
> >
> >     8     0  19535040 sda    OK
> >     8    16  78124095 sdb    OK
> >     8    17     56196 sdb1   OK
> >     8    18  61978770 sdb2   OK
> >     8    19    514080 sdb3   OK
> >     8    20  15575017 sdb4   extended no name??
> >     8    21  14546826 sdb5   found as sdb4
> >     8    22   1020127 sdb6   extended no name??
> >     8    25   1020096 sdb9   found as sdb5
> >     8    32 120624052 sdc    OK
> >     8    33 120624021 sdc1   OK
> >     8    48  58613152 sdd    OK
> >     8    49  58613121 sdd1   OK
> >     8    65    253984 sde1   extended no name??
> >     8    69   2062305 sde5   found as sde1
> >
> >
> > I dont think that the extended partitions should have a device??
> > and i find the other partitions as i have stated.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the bug report. I will look into this when I get the time.
> Incidentally, do you know what Linux's behaviour is in this regard, i.e. 
> if you run the same command on Linux (if you have it installed), what is 
> the result?

This should be solved in CVS.  I've applied a patch yesterday.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -