Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "dsksize".
Did you mean:
disksize
2016 Feb 26
4
[PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32
...n altered from Ridegcrop's). When this code is ran against the same
disk and same parameters as we've been using for our example, and with
some debugging of the variables enabled, you'll see the following output:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DskSize = 195369519, ReservedSecCnt = 32, SecPerClus = 64, NumFATs=2,
BytesPerSect = 512
Numerator = 4 * (195369519 - 32) = 781477948
Denominator = (64 * 512) + (4 * 2) = 32776
FatSz = (781477948 / 32776) + 1 = 23843
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the algori...
2016 Feb 26
0
[PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32
...#39;s). When this code is ran against the same
> disk and same parameters as we've been using for our example, and with
> some debugging of the variables enabled, you'll see the following output:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DskSize = 195369519, ReservedSecCnt = 32, SecPerClus = 64, NumFATs=2,
> BytesPerSect = 512
>
> Numerator = 4 * (195369519 - 32) = 781477948
> Denominator = (64 * 512) + (4 * 2) = 32776
> FatSz = (781477948 / 32776) + 1 = 23843
> ----------------------------------------------------------...
2016 Feb 25
3
[PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32
Hi Ady,
On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size
had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the
opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize
computed by the unpatched code, hence the check