Hi!
24-Фев-2004 01:53 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EA> - boot sectors could be made to show a generic error message like "Error"
EA> instead of hanging, now that Arkady has squeezed some more free space out
EA> of them :-). However, FAT1x and FAT32-CHS boot sector
Hi!
> But I don't understand roots of these conditions. Do you mean that for
> LBA partition entry->Cylinder (should be) equal to 1023 or to low 10 bits of
> real address?
I think "if value cannot be expressed by CHS (because Cyl > 1023) then 1023
or value modulo 1024 will be used instead".
Hi!
25-Фев-2004 02:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> + return !((chs->Cylinder & 0x3ff) == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
>> + 1023 == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
EA> This is because if beyond cylinder 1023, then only LBA is valid and
EA> CHS should not be compared,
Салям!
25-Фев-2004 02:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Auer) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
EA> Subject: [Freedos-kernel] re:kernel/kernel initdisk.c,1.24,1.25
--^^^
BTW, looks like you manually insert the "re:" prefix (in wrong place).
---
Hi!
> + return !((chs->Cylinder & 0x3ff) == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
> + 1023 == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
This is because if beyond cylinder 1023, then only LBA is valid and
CHS should not be compared, I think.
> + (chs->Cylinder == pEntry_chs->Cylinder &&
> +chs-
Hi!
24-Фев-2004 15:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> +BOOL is_suspect(struct CHS *chs, struct CHS *pEntry_chs)
> +{
> + return !((chs->Cylinder & 0x3ff) == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
> + 1023 == pEntry_chs->Cylinder ||
> + (chs->Cylinder == pEntry_chs->Cylinder &&
> +chs->Head
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:57:47 +0300 (MSK), Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Currently SYS doesn't support sector size different from 512, but boot
sectors itself rely on bsBytesPerSec field. Is there objections against
embeding 512 value into boot sector (for example, shift by 9 instead
multiply by bsBytes
Hi!
Currently SYS doesn't support sector size different from 512, but boot
sectors itself rely on bsBytesPerSec field. Is there objections against
embeding 512 value into boot sector (for example, shift by 9 instead
multiply by bsBytesPerSec)?
-
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:22:36 + (GMT), Bart Oldeman wrote:
Good catch! I have now integrated your patch collection.
Thank you, Bart! I saw the patches in the CVS list.
Except that I opted to simply do
nasm -D_INIT -fobj -o iasmsupt.obj asmsupt.asm
This really doesn't make the makefile more com
Hi!
BTW, for checking target drive validness I add next code (where
`drive' is a drive letter):
__O\_/_\_/O__
{
static char src [] = " :\\", dst [SYS_MAXPATH] /*= ""*/;
src [0] = drive;
truename (dst, src);
if (dst [0]
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Luchezar Georgiev wrote:
> As usually, I was slightly wrong. Fortunately, the complex DosMemAlloc()
> function is innocent! The bug was in DoInstall() itself! The allocation
> code should have changed when we introduced the EBDA stuff, bue alas, we
> forgot that! So, it was en
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Michael wrote:
> If I want to load the Xcemndis.exe with the Ms Net software, it says
> that it couldn't find a free IRQ. With the IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM from
> Microsoft it works...
> I use the current kernel, 2.0.33
can you try
stacks=0,0
in config.sys?
Bart
--
Hi,
If I want to load the Xcemndis.exe with the Ms Net software, it says
that it couldn't find a free IRQ. With the IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM from
Microsoft it works...
I use the current kernel, 2.0.33
Any ideas?
---
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed
13 matches
Mail list logo
