Message-Id:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010108214328.03441e60@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender:	usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date:	Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:44:44 -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:	<200101082112.WAA00328@father.ludd.luth.se>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010108090225 DOT 4690G-100000 AT is>
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 10:12 PM 1/8/01 +0100, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
 >According to Eli Zaretskii:
 >> > Yes, but if the AX7303 values are correct (when re-scaled to
 >2048-byte
 >> > block size), shouldn't those be what we use?
 >>
 >> We don't have any way of telling if 217303 is correct or not.
 >
 >I've been mulling this over. I think we just have to accept that 
INT21
 >AX=7303 is correct with regard to _total_ _blocks_ and _free_
 >_blocks. I know that the fact it's lying about bsize isn't 
encouraging
 >but the size it's reporting is correct in the sense it's what WINDOZE
 >reports, right?
 >
 >Soooo, suppose if we take the (non-block) sizes from INT21 AX=7303 
and
 >the block size from INT2f AX=1510 and then scales the other values
 >accordingly so in sum it's right (in accordance with WINDOZE).
 >
 >Comments?

That, in effect, is what I was suggesting, so I agree.

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

- Raw text -