From:	Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: 18-sector limit with biosdisk()
Date:	Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:31:29 +0000
Organization:	Customer of Energis Squared
Lines:	24
Message-ID:	<3jo78to69hpd1d0m128fcgk26a3th2qggv@4ax.com>
References:	<c2l38toalpafu97en8dn583pmm6ju6haqa AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010208100550 DOT 20284C AT is>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-91.colorado.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 981721891 7108 62.137.57.91 (9 Feb 2001 12:31:31 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	9 Feb 2001 12:31:31 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader:	Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Jason Green wrote:
> 
> > > Well, many bioses will not boot with the 'compact' option, because they
> > > don't know how to deal with a full-track 21-sector read.  They can read
> > > one sector at a time up to track 21, but if you say, 'read 21 tracks to
> > > the buffer starting at track 0', they choke.  So, with LILO you have to
> > > NOT have the 'compact' option.  Now, in the case of the kernel loading,
> > > directly without LILO, maybe it is combining the reads the same way and
> > > failing that way?
> > > 
> > > -Tom
> > 
> > If I understand this correctly it means that certain BIOS
> > implementations limit the read buffer size.  On the other hand I could
> > just as easily have the wrong end of the stick... ;-)
> 
> Does this mean that if we bump the limit to 21 sectors, programs might 
> choke with som BIOSes?

Yes - unless you think it could mean something else.  If there is some
doubt then it would be worth to do a simple test before any serious
development work on libc.

- Raw text -