You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 2, 2024. It is now read-only.
Some quick comments / suggestions after quickly skimming through that discussion thread you linked to:
Does it make sense to add a 'skip' option without also adding a 'count' option at the same time? E.g. if there's 4 partitions in an image, and you only want to copy out partition 2, then only having a 'skip' option will force you to copy out partitions 2, 3 and 4 as well; whereas if you had both 'skip' and 'count' options then you could copy out only partition 2 ;-)
With all the discussion about block-misalignment, what's the likelihood of wanting to skip a non-block-aligned number of bytes? Will partition boundaries (the use-case being discussed) always be block-aligned? And if so, given the block-based nature of bmap-tools, I wonder if it might be easier to specify 'skip' and 'count' as block-offsets, rather than byte-offsets? 🤷♂️
Good questions. Yes, skip should probably come with count and the unit should be the block. There can be a way to specify offset, but that would be just for improved user-friendliness and that would translate offsets to blocks and fail in case of misalignment.
It would be great to have an option to skip initial offset of the source file when copying.
There were some discussion about it with the great recommendations from Artem how to better do this: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/bmap-tools/2015/thread.html
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: