[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#54835: Inconsistent interpretation of end specifications
From: |
Joshua Krämer |
Subject: |
bug#54835: Inconsistent interpretation of end specifications |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 13:47:33 +0200 |
Dear parted developers,
the mkpart end specification seems to be interpreted differently
depending on the given unit. If the end location is given in s, B or
KiB, it seems to be interpreted as the offset of the partition's last
sector:
| $ parted test.img
| WARNING: You are not superuser. Watch out for permissions.
| GNU Parted 3.4
| Using /home/joshua/parted/test.img
| Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
| (parted) mkpart test 2048s 4096s
| (parted) unit s
| (parted) print
| Model: (file)
| Disk /home/joshua/parted/test.img: 6144s
| Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
| Partition Table: gpt
| Disk Flags:
|
| Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
| 1 2048s 4096s 2049s test
"mkpart test 1048576B 2097152B" and "mkpart test 1024KiB 2048KiB" give
the same result. However, if the end is specified in MiB, it seems to
be interpreted as the offset of the first sector after the partition's
end:
| (parted) mkpart test 1MiB 2MiB
| (parted) print
| Model: (file)
| Disk /home/joshua/parted/test.img: 6144s
| Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
| Partition Table: gpt
| Disk Flags:
|
| Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
| 1 2048s 4095s 2048s test
The meaning of the end specification with the print command seems to
be different as well. I think it represents the offset of the first
sector after the partition's end minus 1 unit (rounded):
| (parted) mkpart test 1048576B 2097152B
| (parted) unit B
| (parted) print
| Model: (file)
| Disk /home/joshua/parted/test.img: 3145728B
| Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
| Partition Table: gpt
| Disk Flags:
|
| Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
| 1 1048576B 2097663B 1049088B test
If there is a reason for these inconsistencies, I think they should be
clearly described in the documentation.
Thanks for your work and kind regards,
Joshua Krämer
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#54835: Inconsistent interpretation of end specifications,
Joshua Krämer <=