Message-Id:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010107141953.00a79210@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 14:46:55 -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:	<200101071903.UAA24570@father.ludd.luth.se>
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010107121357 DOT 00aa6580 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 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 added some "#if TEST" print statements to produce more detailed
 >> info.  It sure looks to me like AX1510 is producing wrong results 
for
 >> the CDRW drive and AX7303 is producing correct results.  By 
checking
 >
 >The problem is the block size. If you have a CDROM it has block size
 >2048 and nothing else. If you see a different block size that is a
 >lie.

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

 >> whether AX1510 is greater than AX7303, Martin's code produces (I
 >think)
 >> the wrong results for CD's, though correct for DVD's.  At least, it 

 >> produces results that are different from the Win98 "Properties"
 >> value.  Here are my results (patched statfs.c follows at the end).
 >
 >I think I and Eli agree on that WINDOZE properties values are not
 >exactly correct all the time.

But if that is the case, how do we verify which one is correct?  Maybe 
we should email Ralf Brown and see if he has any recent or unpublished 
info on how to distinguish a DVD-ROM from a CR-ROM/RW.

 >Thank you for running the tests!

You're quite welcome.

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

- Raw text -