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
Message-ID:	<3877.130.240.136.220.1119457199.squirrel@pinus.tt.luth.se>
In-Reply-To:	<20050621093623.GA21869@calimero.vinschen.de>
References:	<4455 DOT 130 DOT 240 DOT 136 DOT 220 DOT 1119286173 DOT squirrel AT pinus> <42B7CC49 DOT 4090804 AT atomice DOT net> <20050621093623 DOT GA21869 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:19:59 +0200 (CEST)
Subject:	Re: Possible Bug in /proc/partitions ??
From:	"Bengt-Arne Fjellner" <Bengt-Arne DOT Fjellner AT ltu DOT se>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	SquirrelMail/1.4.4
MIME-Version:	1.0

Corinna Vinschen skrev:
> 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.
>
Works with 2005-Jun-21   snapshot.
$ cat /proc/partitions
major minor  #blocks  name

    8     0  19535040 sda
    8    16  78124095 sdb
    8    17     56196 sdb1
    8    18  61978770 sdb2
    8    19    514080 sdb3
    8    20  14546826 sdb4
    8    21   1020096 sdb5
    8    32 120624052 sdc
    8    33 120624021 sdc1
    8    48  58613152 sdd
    8    49  58613121 sdd1
    8    64    506047 sde
    8    65    507632 sde1


All OK. Thanks.

-- 
Bengt-Arne Fjellner
0910-58 53 69



--
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 -