Michael Schmitz - 04.07.23, 07:58:13 CEST:
OK, so using "-1" as an end-of-disk partition marker is fine, but it
was just the partition size recorded in Christian's RDB that was
incorrect, correct?
No, the partition size in the RDB was correct (valid, end cylinder
before end of disk). The partition size seen by user space tools when
running the old kernels was incorrect. That lead to the filesystem
size exceeding the partition size, which only came to light once the
overflow fixes had gone in.
I know it does sound like semantic sophism, but we have to be clear
that what the user put in the partition block is definite. I haven't
had much luck with heuristics in kernel code lately...
Now I finally get this issue, I think. Thanks for this explanation.
I think something like this would do good in the patch description.
Best,
--
Martin
