3 ms·
The field was set to 0 by a function it was passed to previously.. It didn't do that in older kernel versions so it kept the proper value, so a classical miscom
by iforgotpassword 9y ago
The field was set to 0 by a function it was passed to previously.. It didn't do that in older kernel versions so it kept the proper value, so a classical miscommunication (or none at all) between devs.
- remar 9y agoThis sounds exactly like the sort of behavior that should be specified/committed in the form of a unit test. That would've caused this code change to fail, unless I'm missing something.
- mlyle 9y agoNo-- the cloning operation didn't preserve the partition information. When I first bisected/found the issue I thought it was as you describe, but it's really just that cloning 0'd it out in the new copy and everything else was proper.
- masklinn 9y ago> The field was set to 0 by a function it was passed to previously. The entire structure was just memset to 0, it's not like the struct was carefully initialised.