Re: Bug?

[Andrew Clausen]

Klaus Maisinger wrote:
> (parted) print
> Disk geometry for /dev/hda: 0-9671.5 megabytes
> Minor   Start     End    Type            Filesystem     Flags
> 1          0.0   1600.2  primary         FAT
> 2       1600.2   1725.7  primary         linux-swap
> 3       1725.7   9248.4  extended                       boot
> 5       1725.8   1882.6  logical         ext2           boot
> 6       1882.6   4384.9  logical         ext2
> 7       4385.0   6385.2  logical         ext2
> 8       6385.2   8997.3  logical         ext2
> 9       8997.4   9248.4  logical         ext2
> 4       9248.4   9664.1  primary         linux-swap
> (parted) resize 1 0.0 800.
> Error: The FATs aren't big enough to describe all clusters!  Each FAT is
> 200 sectors.  There are 51199clusters, which would require each FAT to be
> 200 sectors.  This is REALLY weird.  You might want to
> write us an email: address@hidden

Interesting.  (BTW, there is a bug in the error reporting code... it
forgot to add 2 the number of clusters, when computing the required
size of each FAT - which is really 201 sectors)

Could you please compile parted with debug info, and run gdb:

        $ CFLAGS=-g ./configure && make clean && make
        $ cd parted
        $ su
        # libtool gdb parted
        (gdb) set args /dev/hda
        (gdb) run
        (parted) [hit CTRL-C]
        SIGINT
        (gdb) break fat_calc_sizes
        (gdb) cont
        (parted) check 1
        Breakpoint 1
        (gdb) up
        (gdb) print *fs_info

And send the output after the last command.  (you can then quit
gdb with "quit")

Hint: you can use gpm (or X cut&paste) to cut&paste the output.

> Version 1.2.8's error message was even more drastic:

This is nothing to worry about... I wasn't doing any error checking
before, but I am now.

> The hard drive's history:
> 
> If I remember this correctly, I used parted successfully a while ago to
> decrease hda1 to make more space for the swap partition.
> Since then I also ran Win95's disk fragmenter on hda1.

Interesting... this is worth investigating... (we'll look at the
other stuff first though, ok? ;-)

Thanks,
Andrew Clausen