On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 21:36 +0000, Jeff B wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. So the length of a partition (in sectors) is not
> necessarily equal to the cylinders * tracks * sectors given in the
> DISK_GEOMETRY struct. Good to know, I guess.
>
> I wonder if using the "disk size (in bytes)" field of the
> DISK_GEOMETRY_EX structure would report the same as C*T*S*Bytes (per
> sector), or the same as the partition info.
>
> At any rate - thanks again for the patch, and I'll get it incorporated
> for a future release.
>
I'm already incorporating that patch (and now the revised one). I also
(finally) have your md5 patch in the tree. I'll push it up soon, then
prep a release today.
I have been over-swamped with work since returning from our rally in
Budapest. This is the first time I have had a chance to get back to the
code.
--
Tobin Davis
If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble
then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm.
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 21:36 +0000, Jeff B wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. So the length of a partition (in sectors) is not
> necessarily equal to the cylinders * tracks * sectors given in the
> DISK_GEOMETRY struct. Good to know, I guess.
>
> I wonder if using the "disk size (in bytes)" field of the
> DISK_GEOMETRY_EX structure would report the same as C*T*S*Bytes (per
> sector), or the same as the partition info.
>
> At any rate - thanks again for the patch, and I'll get it incorporated
> for a future release.
>
I'm already incorporating that patch (and now the revised one). I also
(finally) have your md5 patch in the tree. I'll push it up soon, then
prep a release today.
I have been over-swamped with work since returning from our rally in
Budapest. This is the first time I have had a chance to get back to the
code.
--
Tobin Davis
If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble
then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm.