search for: fatted

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

Hi Ady, Your insightful post prompted me to to a little bit more digging as to how the Ridgecrop algorithm computed its FAT size, with the result of my investigations presented below. NB: For those who don't want to go through this whole part, there's a TL;DR near the end. For reference, the computation of the FAT size all done in the GetFATSizeSectors(), the code of which is at [1]

Filesystem UUID shows the partition we boot kernel from. The kernel parameter has format like FSUUID=DA1A-0B2E. The SYSAPPEND bit is 0x40000. Now the FAT only supports FSUUID. The patch is based on 67aaaeeb228. Signed-off-by: Serj Kalichev <serj.kalichev at gmail.com> --- com32/include/syslinux/sysappend.h | 1 + core/fs/btrfs/btrfs.c | 3 ++- core/fs/ext2/ext2.c

In the following text, I am about to use terms such as "inaccurate". I don't mean to question what some code does, but rather to compare the expressions against what I think is a more accurate one, in theory. I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that developers are doing the wrong thing. In addition, of course I could be wrong (or type in incorrectly, or some formatting

> 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 >

Does rsync -aAXv /dir1 /dir2, where dir2 is a mounted FAT formatted SD card, and then: rsync -aAXv /dir2 /dir1, to restore the files in dir1 from the FAT formatted SD card, restore the ACL and owner/permissions of the files and directories in dir1? Thanks, John -- John Conover, conover at rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/

This patch adds a switch --fat-filenames which replaces all characters that aren't legal on FAT filesystems with an underscore. This is the first time I touch the rsync code, so I may not be going about it the right way, but it seems to be working. Naturally there's some potential for collisions, but it's probably better than what happens currently (such files are simply not copied).

HI, if I do : [jezequel@soleil tmp]$ rsync -aH /tmp/jppjppjpp ~jezequel/sauvNT chown "/home/jezequel/sauvNT/jppjppjpp" failed: Operation not permitted mkstemp "/home/jezequel/sauvNT/jppjppjpp/.mlkjmlkj.dKl4JR" failed: Operation not permitted chown "/home/jezequel/sauvNT/jppjppjpp" failed: Operation not permitted rsync error: some files could not be transferred (code

Is there a mix of SYSLINUX and ISOLINUX that can boot an ISO image from a FAT file system? Sort of like MEMDISK but doesn't need to load the entire great-big ISO into RAM or install an int-13 driver? SYSLINUX would need to be installed on the FAT file system but it would want to chain-load ISOLINUX as installed on the ISO. ISOLINUX would load it's blocks from the ISO file in the FAT

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12915 Bug ID: 12915 Summary: --modify-window should default to 1 for fat filesystems Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at

From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> If you use virt-make-fs to create a partitionless FAT-formatted disk image then currently you will get an error: $ virt-make-fs --type=fat . /tmp/test.img 'mkfs' (create filesystem) operation failed. Instead of 'fat', try 'vfat' (long filenames) or 'msdos' (short filenames). mkfs: fat: /dev/sda:

Hi: I use lm (linear model) to analyze 47 variables , 8 responses So I use loop to finish it . I want the program to show the results that P-value is less than 0.05. How can I cite the P-valus from lm result ? Ping The code: #using LM to model general fati for (j in 48:52) { for (i in 3:46){ gen.fat<-y_x[,j] gen.fat<-as.numeric(gen.fat) snp_marker<-y_x[,i] x<-colnames(y_x)

On 10 Sep 2013, at 12:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Well, ok, you can treat this as a 192-bit fat pointer, but AFAICT this is not the real intention of the MPX developers > since a fat pointer will break all ABIs, and MPX tries to preserve them. MPX is an implementation of the HardBound concept from UPenn, where this was a design goal (see also their 'low-fat

Hi, i wrote: > > Would it be desirable to explain how Fedora et.al. > > created their FAT boot images by help of old or new > > GRUB ? > > (If developers of EFI bootable ISOs are reading this, > > please give a short sketch of the procedure.) piranna at gmail.com wrote: > I did it by including the Linux kernel and the initramfs None of the ISOs i know has this

Hi, i wrote: > > Well, it is about really usable capabilities of isohybrid, Ady wrote: > but their practical combination, usage, effects, > goals... are not expressed clearly enough for the common user to put in > practice. How to express the embarrassing fact that ISOLINUX is not ready for UEFI but isohybrid is ? http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Isohybrid#UEFI would

Dear All, I’m working on a project that extends C. I’m adding a new type of pointer that is a fat pointer. It has some metadata about the pointed object besides the starting address of the object. Currently I implemented this pointer as an llvm:StructType. In llvm::Type generation function llvm::Type *CodeGenTypes::ConvertType(QualType T) in the case for clang::Type::Pointer, instead of creating

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:28, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall < > David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at

Hi, Ady: > -eltorito-boot EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI This is most probably wrong, as this seems to be the prescribed name for a file inside the EFI-understandable filesystem. This filesystem would not be the ISO 9660 but rather the FAT image file which serves as EFI boot image. > -eltorito-boot EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.IMG This might be better. From where did you learn that name ? I still did not

On 02/26/16 09:54, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: >> >> I'm not exactly sure how that would work (how would you mark those clusters >> as wasted when my understanding is that the FAT's can't provide any >> knowledge about them in the first place?) and unless it is automatically >> integrated and ran during the Syslinux installation, it sounds quite >>

Hi, piranna wrote: > > Quoting http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Isohybrid#UEFI: > > "The additional isohybrid feature for UEFI adds a partition to the MBR > > partition table pointing to the same file in the ISO 9660 filesystem > > as does the El Torito catalog entry for EFI." Ady wrote: > IMHO, the current content of the Isohybrid page in the Syslinux