Re: Possible Bug in /proc/partitions ??

[Chris January <chris at atomice dot net>]

Bengt-Arne Fjellner wrote:

> either /proc/prtitions has something wrong or i have.
> This is how it looks.
> $ cat /proc/partitions
> major minor  #blocks  name
>
>     8     0  19535040 sda    OK
>     8    16  78124095 sdb    OK
>     8    17     56196 sdb1   OK
>     8    18  61978770 sdb2   OK
>     8    19    514080 sdb3   OK
>     8    20  15575017 sdb4   extended no name??
>     8    21  14546826 sdb5   found as sdb4
>     8    22   1020127 sdb6   extended no name??
>     8    25   1020096 sdb9   found as sdb5
>     8    32 120624052 sdc    OK
>     8    33 120624021 sdc1   OK
>     8    48  58613152 sdd    OK
>     8    49  58613121 sdd1   OK
>     8    65    253984 sde1   extended no name??
>     8    69   2062305 sde5   found as sde1
>
>
> I dont think that the extended partitions should have a device??
> and i find the other partitions as i have stated.


Thanks for the bug report. I will look into this when I get the time.
Incidentally, do you know what Linux's behaviour is in this regard, i.e. 
if you run the same command on Linux (if you have it installed), what is 
the result?

Chris

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/