On Friday 02 March 2007 03:11, Ben Hutchings wrote: > What is the intended difference in semantics between RESIZE_PARTITION > and VIRTUAL_RESIZE_PARTITION? In the resize_partition() function these > are distinguished by the open_filesystem flag which implied to me that > in the latter case we wouldn't expect to find a filesystem in the > partition at all. Clearly that's not the case here. I have no idea to be honest. There is a comment with the functions VIRTUAL_RESIZE_PARTITION and GET_VIRTUAL_RESIZE_RANGE that says they "are undocumented and should disappear", but I have no idea beyond that. Could it be that a virtual partition is one that has been created or modified, but has not yet been committed to disk? This happens quite a lot in partman. > It should be clear that all the new code (aside from the error check) > only runs in the currently broken case, so this does not affect > resizing ext2 etc. And none of it is running below > maximize_extended_partition(). This new patch works again. I've asked Colin Watson if he can review your patch. Within the D-I team he currently has the best grasp of what happens in this area of partman. Thanks again.
Attachment:
pgp7O3iPQiLEZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature