search for: libfat_open

git://gnx.ath.cx/syslinux.git On branch for_hpa, I've got several groups of changes (listed bottom up) -chain.c32: the beginning of a DRMK loader; I still need to test this further and document/code what ones can possibly work -mtools/syslinux.c: Check to be sure fs is not NULL in case libfat_open() failed, like it can on a bad filesystem. Try to present a useful error rather than a seg fault. -libfat: A check for NULL pointers; A change to allow for a short FAT/too many sectors (depending on perspective); Try trimming the in-memory values to deal with the corruption, if possible. -NEW: mto...

...er syslinux_read_disk(&disk_info, mbr, 0, 1); // Read mbr partition = PARTITION_ENTRY(mbr, 2); // 2 for partition 2 // this is the disk device/partition descriptor dfd.disk_info = &disk_info; dfd.partition = partition; // try opening libfat partition on the given partition descriptor fs = libfat_open(syslinux_fs_partition_read_handle, (intptr_t) &dfd); fd = fs->ops.open(fs, "MYFILE CFG", O_RDONLY); // This will give you a open descriptor // Now on, you can read files just like any other *nix file...! :) read(fd, mybuf, 128); // read 128 bytes from file.. OR you can use zl...

When trying to installing Syslinux on a FAT32 drive formatted using Ridgecrop's Large FAT32 formatting tool [1], the installer will bail due to the minfatsize check, as there is an extra sector being used. This fix addresses that. [1] http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm -------------- next part --------------

...ize 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 fails). The additional sector I was talking about is from the (unpatched) minfatsize variable computed in libfat_open() when it is compared to the fatsize variable. If you use a Large FAT32 formatted drive, you will see that fatsize is always less than (unpatched) minfatsize by a difference of 1, and my understanding is that these values are expressed in number of FAT sectors. So I guess it'd probably be m...

...ctor 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 fails). The additional > sector I was talking about is from the (unpatched) minfatsize variable > computed in libfat_open() when it is compared to the fatsize variable. > > If you use a Large FAT32 formatted drive, you will see that fatsize is > always less than (unpatched) minfatsize by a difference of 1, and my > understanding is that these values are expressed in number of FAT > sectors. So I gue...

...uot;); } /* Get 2nd partition info */ bank2_part_info = PARTITION_ENTRY(mbr, bank2); if (bank2_part_info->ostype != PART_TYPE_FAT16) { error("Warning: Bank 2 is of wrong type"); } rFd.disk_info = &disk_info; rFd.partition = bank1_part_info; fat_fs = libfat_open(fat_disk_read_handle, (intptr_t) &rFd); bootcfg_cluster = libfat_searchdir(fat_fs, 0, "BOOT CFG", NULL); if (bootcfg_cluster <= 0) { error("No boot config file found"); } bootcfg_sector = libfat_clustertosector(fat_fs, bootcfg_cluster) + rFd.partitio...