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
