Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Marco Gerards wrote: > >>>>> + unsigned int partno = grub_strtoul (partition, 0, 0); >>>>> + partno--; /* GRUB partition numbering is 0-based. */ >>>> >>>> Right. But how can you be sure both match? >>> >>> Eh? OF partition numbers are 1-based. To convert to GRUB's 0-based >>> numbering, we subtract one. How could that not "match"? >> >> Because not in all cases GRUB and the firmware will count partitions >> the same way. A good example is the PC partition map. In linux >> primary partitions are numbers from 1 to 4, extended partitions are >> numbered from 5 (IIRC). One other way to count these partitions is >> just by starting counting from 1. >> >> This is just an example. There are a lot of partition table layouts >> and many ways to interpret partition numbers. I can imagine GRUB >> does not always work the same as a specific firmware implementation >> all the time. > > If GRUB counts partition numbers different than Open Firmware, I > consider this a bug that must be fixed. 0-based partition numbers are > quite confusing enough.
And I do not consider that a bug. We can not confirm to the way every OS/firmware implementation numbers its partitions. This is *not* about 0-basic partition numbers, but about how the same things can be handled differently. We can adapt to the most popular implementations. But I am sure things will fail someday. > In this case, due to the implicit numbering of Apple partition map > entries, this shouldn't even be an issue. Right. But this is not always true. -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
