Alternate proposed logic for fs-update unused blocks optimisation

[James Cameron]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:18:50PM +1000, James Cameron wrote:
> There is one small problem left to fix; Q3A64 fs-update displays an
> error at the end because the total number of blocks written has not
> agreed with the number of blocks specified at the top of the file.  I
> propose to fix that somehow, but I've yet to decide on exactly how.
> It was introduced by -r2186, where on your request Mitch changed the
> check from last block written to number of blocks written.  It does
> not happen with Q3A62.

I've fixed this locally and tested with my sparse .zd file, and
os860.zd.  The patch is attached for review.

I've changed the ?all-written check, which happens after the blocks are
written, so that it reports a warning if either:

- the highest block written is below the end of the image, and/or;

- the lowest block written is not zero.

For an fs-update of a sparse .zd file, using a partial download, the
first warning appears after "Short read of zdata file".

For an fs-update of a zero block last .zd file, using a partial
download, both warnings shall appear.

This changes the meaning of the #image-eblocks value from a count of
blocks expected, to a count of blocks in the original image from which
the .zd was made.

(Also, in the previous code, #eblocks-written was not reset when
fs-update started, so I suspect a second fs-update would have generated
a spurious warning.)

Do you have a sample of your "write zero block last" .zd file?  I've
looked at os16.zd2.zsp but it writes zero block first.  I really should
set up an F14 builder here.  Got any checklist?

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openfirmware-fsupdate-warnings.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1729 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110421/249f624a/attachment.patch>