Re: Typo in libparted

[Harley D. Eades III]

Sven Luther <address@hidden> writes:

> Because Andrew reimplemented it.
> 
> > Patch:
> > > +       if ((!strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FAT", 3)
> > > +            && strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x40, "SBML", 4))
> > >             || !strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x52, "FAT", 3))
> > >                 return 0;
> > 
> > disk_dos.c:
> > if ((!strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FAT", 3)
> >      && strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x36, "FATSBML", 7) != 0)
> >      || !strncmp (part_table.boot_code + 0x52, "FAT", 3))
> >          return 0;
> > 
> > What is differ from FATSBML vs. SBML?
> 
> I feel strange, as i understand the original code looks for FAT at 0x36, and
> then for SBML at 0x40. The new code looks for FATSBML at 0x36, which means the
> SBML will start at 0x39. Maybe SBML is written two times in the MBR table ?
Maybe, is the original author of the patch around?  Or do you know of any 
documentation 
covering SBML?

hde