search for: minfatsize

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 --------------

...e will result also in a non-integer value. Once again (sorry), I am talking math, not computer code. As per the "big" numbers and accuracy, again, I cannot comment on computer code. I do want to remind you that, besides the "generic" determination of an "adequate" minfatsize in Syslinux's code, we should at least test the values that are around or close to the limits between FAT12/16/32. For simplicity, I'll give basic examples (which I have not truly analyzed; developers could / should test relevant code). Example A: Volume_Total_Sectors: 66'463 FAT t...

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 fails). The additional sector I was talking about is from the (unpatched) minfatsize variable computed in libfat_open() when it is compared to the fatsiz...

> 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 fails). The additional > sector I was talking about is from the (unpatched) minfatsize variable > computed in libfat_open() when it is co...

...DR*: The Ridgecrop Fat Size computation algorithm is wrong, and, whether > justified or not, the existing Syslinux check does catch FATs that are > missing addressable sectors. > > > I have now tested the new computation against a 320GB and 1TB drive, and > found that the original minfatsize check of Syslinux is no longer an issue. > > This being said, and to address Ady's subsequent point: > > While I can now address the issue in Rufus (and will contact Tom Thornhill > of Ridgecrop to let him know about both the issue & fix), I suspect there > are users out t...

> 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 > The expression: "...as there is an extra sector being used." is not clear (to me). There is an "extra" sector, in comp...

...ected with the above tool, assuming >> "-f" circumvents this check. I've been tossing the idea around that a >> single "-f" might not be the best answer and a longer option >> specifying a list of checks to skip might be more balanced, ie "-F >> minfatsize,othercheck". >> >> 3) Ensure that the Syslinux installers state which check failed to >> assist users in correcting their file system, regardless of if "-f" is >> specified. If "-f" is not specified, installation should fail >> completely (hop...

Hi Ady, I won't comment on the reasons why the original computation was wrong, but thanks for the detailed analysis. On 2016.02.26 08:05, Ady via Syslinux wrote: >> Thus we can finally get a formula for Fs that satisfies the above: >> >> Fs = (To - Rs + Nf * Cs) / ((Ss * Cs / Fe) + Nf) + 1 > > I believe such formula is slightly inaccurate too. > > My

On 2016.02.26 15:32, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > Regarding the "+1", when talking about the math (not the computer code > to achieve a result as accurate as it can be) Well, sorry, but I will not dissociate the context of application from the formula itself. I thought this was implied into what I wrote, which was in the context of fixing a computation algorithm bug. The sole

...e system is corrected with the above tool, assuming > "-f" circumvents this check. I've been tossing the idea around that a > single "-f" might not be the best answer and a longer option > specifying a list of checks to skip might be more balanced, ie "-F > minfatsize,othercheck". > > 3) Ensure that the Syslinux installers state which check failed to > assist users in correcting their file system, regardless of if "-f" is > specified. If "-f" is not specified, installation should fail > completely (hopefully with 0 altera...

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 >>

...The Ridgecrop Fat Size computation algorithm is wrong, and, > whether justified or not, the existing Syslinux check does catch FATs > that are missing addressable sectors. > > > I have now tested the new computation against a 320GB and 1TB drive, and > found that the original minfatsize check of Syslinux is no longer an issue. > > This being said, and to address Ady's subsequent point: > > While I can now address the issue in Rufus (and will contact Tom > Thornhill of Ridgecrop to let him know about both the issue & fix), I > suspect there are users o...

...------------------ *TL;DR*: The Ridgecrop Fat Size computation algorithm is wrong, and, whether justified or not, the existing Syslinux check does catch FATs that are missing addressable sectors. I have now tested the new computation against a 320GB and 1TB drive, and found that the original minfatsize check of Syslinux is no longer an issue. This being said, and to address Ady's subsequent point: While I can now address the issue in Rufus (and will contact Tom Thornhill of Ridgecrop to let him know about both the issue & fix), I suspect there are users out there who are using and wil...

...ve so far. I appreciate feedback like that from Gabriele Balducci and testing "make bios installer". Yes, there are a few patches I'd like to review for inclusion or feedback before a full release. At the moment, I've been reviewing/testing Pete Betard's patch set minus the minfatsize patch. Looking over my list of pending patches, here's a short list of some others: - extlinux cleanup (4) - EFI DNS (two different patches from two people) - EFI UDP/TFTP rewrite - extlinux leaks (2; some feedback already from Paulo) -- -Gene

...sync with the official mainline. Some of these fixes have to do with being more friendly with MSVC compilation, and other are fixes for actual Syslinux issues, that Rufus users have encountered. For convenience, the individual description of each patch is gathered below: o [PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32: When trying to installing Syslinux on a FAT32 drive formatted using Ridgecrop's Large FAT32 formatting tool [2], the installer will bail due to the minfatsize check, as there is an extra sector being used. This fix addresses that. o [PATCH 2/5] ntfs: remove unused variable...

...feedback like > that from Gabriele Balducci and testing "make bios installer". > > Yes, there are a few patches I'd like to review for inclusion or > feedback before a full release. At the moment, I've been > reviewing/testing Pete Betard's patch set minus the minfatsize patch. > > Looking over my list of pending patches, here's a short list of some others: > - extlinux cleanup (4) > - EFI DNS (two different patches from two people) > - EFI UDP/TFTP rewrite > - extlinux leaks (2; some feedback already from Paulo) > > -- > -Gene &gt...

...feedback like > that from Gabriele Balducci and testing "make bios installer". > > Yes, there are a few patches I'd like to review for inclusion or > feedback before a full release. At the moment, I've been > reviewing/testing Pete Betard's patch set minus the minfatsize patch. > > Looking over my list of pending patches, here's a short list of some others: > - extlinux cleanup (4) > - EFI DNS (two different patches from two people) > - EFI UDP/TFTP rewrite > - extlinux leaks (2; some feedback already from Paulo) > $ make -j [jobs] ... g...