Hm, that I'm not sure of..
IIRC that part of the code expects only the disk block device without the partition number, but I haven't gone through it in detail.
(I guess the [0-9] range is there for disks named after sd1 or something like that, which I haven't seen yet, but recall something similar on a log file from the past)
But if it indeed does, then, fair enough: that's a better argument (less unlikely scenario :-) for fixing this.
Hi Phillip,
Hm, that I'm not sure of..
IIRC that part of the code expects only the disk block device without the partition number, but I haven't gone through it in detail.
(I guess the [0-9] range is there for disks named after sd1 or something like that, which I haven't seen yet, but recall something similar on a log file from the past)
But if it indeed does, then, fair enough: that's a better argument (less unlikely scenario :-) for fixing this.
Thanks