Message-Id:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010107182135.0274db50@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender:	usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date:	Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:28:57 -0500
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
Cc:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
In-Reply-To:	<200101072031.VAA24934@father.ludd.luth.se>
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010107141953 DOT 00a79210 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
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

At 09:31 PM 1/7/01 +0100, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
 >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?

No, you did not miss anything.  I just wanted to see what the debugging 
patches print on your system, to see how it differs from mine.

 >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?

No, that is a real CDROM in there, not a CDRW.  It's a Corel Linux 
Sources 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).

Have not tried yet.  I will try other RO discs, I currently do not have 
any RW discs, just the hardware to use them when I get around to it.

I will also try some RO's in the DVD drive and see if that makes a 
difference.  Maybe there is a device-specific driver that is getting 
itself hooked in to that interrupt that modifies the results.

 >> 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?)

If we could actually tell the difference between them, that would 
help.  I have not found anything yet.

---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -