From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200101072031.VAA24934@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
In-Reply-To:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010107141953.00a79210@pop5.banet.net> from "Peter J. Farley III" at "Jan 7, 2001 02:46:55 pm"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:31:51 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Peter J. Farley III:
> At 08:03 PM 1/7/01 +0100, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> <Snipped>
>  >This is really strange. Both the recently compiled df and df from
>  >fil316b.zip ought to pick the data from INT21 AX=1510, which ought to
>  >be the same.
> 
> I can't explain it either.  I did some further testing with the cvs 
> version of ststfs.c and the private version provided in the fil316s.zip 
> file on simtel, and both report the AX1510 value, which on my system 
> are wrong (at least, not the same as AX7303).  Maybe it is my system, 
> which does have a lot of M$ patches and upgrades applied.  What does my 
> patched version report on your system, Martin?

I though your patched one only added print-outs- Did I miss something?

A wild guess: If that disc is a RW one, can it be that you added
things so what INT21 AX=1510 reports is the total usage (including old
TOCs), not the total reachable data on the disc?

Do other discs (RW and RO ones) also reports wrong values (with wrong
I mean in contrast to fil316b.zip's df not WINDOZE Properties).

> Yes, but if the AX7303 values are correct (when re-scaled to 2048-byte 
> block size), shouldn't those be what we use?

That could be an option. (Perhaps somebody in c.o.m.d will find the
solution then?)


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -