search for: pierrelib

...ing while still allowing the install and returning a success to the caller of the installer. > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html -- -Gene

...Ady pointed out, not having all sectors addressable doesn't make a disk any less valid. Regards, /Pete [1] https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html

...ble doesn't make a disk any less valid. > > Regards, > > /Pete > > > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html I would like to point out that being able to allocate / address at least the whole Data Area is indeed the "common" way of calculating the Sectors_per_FAT, but I am _not_ saying that having unaddressable sectors is completely invalid. P...

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