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" Subject: Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c Cc: Martin Str|mberg 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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 Precedence: bulk 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: >> >> >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)