Hi!
28-Фев-2004 05:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> - instead "<= FAT_MAGIC*" used "< FAT_MAGIC*" comparision. [BTW, FAT_MAGIC
>> and FAT_MAGIC16 should be FAT12_LAST and FAT16_LAST.] Currently I replace
>> this code by more compact code (suggested by Eric :), which checks how
>> much sectors in FAT.
EA> I can only recommend this for places where space is more important than
EA> acuracy, e.g. in boot sectors. While it is true that a FAT16 fat is >= 16
EA> sectors in any case, a FAT12 fat with > 12 sectors can exist (people can
EA> have padded it to bigger size with unused fat sectors) as well.
If boot sectors will use simplified comparision (when one boot sector
will contain both FAT12 and FAT16 code), then SYS also should use same
simplified expressions. Anyway, I (will) add checking code, which will check
BPB fields validness.
And, is there objections against _not_ supporting _in SYS_ partitions,
with oversized FATs (when FAT12 uses more than (4086*2+511)/512-1=15 sectors
and FAT16 uses more than (65526*4+511)/512-1=511 sectors)?
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id56&alloc_id438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Freedos-kernel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
