Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "numfat".
Did you mean:
numfats
2016 Feb 26
4
[PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32
...nst 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 algorithm mentions that this computation is based on a formula...
2016 Feb 26
0
[PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32
...nd 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 algorithm mentions that...
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