[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Can anyone offer hd partition advice? Circular dependancy!!!

I have 2 "large" WD hardisks both have EZ-DRIVE installed. lk 2.6.10 series hacked support by checking for it. Linux version 2.6.38-k7 (root@xyxy) (gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)) has removed checking

	# from 2.6.10
        /* Yecch - this will shift the entire interval,
           possibly killing some innocent following sector */
        if (block == 0 && drive->remap_0_to_1 == 1)
                block = 1;  /* redirect MBR access to EZ-Drive partn table */

due to "complete re-organization" of bsd / scsi (blocking, paging, hw drivers doing the same, etc) in 2.6.38 ? they deleted the support.

I am being "force upgraded" to use the new firefox which says my libs are too old to upgrade (again!)

I don't have a backup drive large enough: the drives are made as backups of each other ! :)

Question.  anybody have advice on EZ-DRIVE in lk 2.6.38 series ?  Any advice?

I'm afraid if I just dd(1) all the data one block my partition tables headers and supers will be all messed up. all supers and inodes would be off by 1 i think.

#1) grub is no good - it's how the linux-ms-dos driver reads partitions that is blocking dependant

#2) the ms-dos partition driver uses the block number, but the blocking code doesn't know for sure (circular dependancy, this is likely why EZ drive support was hacked out and lost)

If I hack /usr/src/linux/fs/partitions/osf.c so I am free of ms-dos partition mayhem which causes the need ...

	--> osf.c isn't complete <--
	--> was provided as read-only support of certain unix partitions <--
	--> only write code for MS-DOS partitions is avail ?? <--

I wanna return the dang drives with a thank-you note (ha!) Can't. What junk IDE and BIOS is. scsi never gives me these problems, ide always a new issue every board and kernel

If no one has heard of any EZ suport or way around it? Guess I have days of copying todos and drive changing and what ! :(

Have Fun!


Reply to: