On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So there is the problem to estimate the size of the code:
>
> - changing references to f_nodes from near to far (thus with a segment prefix)
about 1300 bytes. It's not just segment prefixes; lots of pointers get
passed around. They're really quite exp
Hi, not sure about that yet, but I think Bart pointed out the way
to go here: As I described, most f_node fields have corresponding
SFT fields. And we recently had this new abstraction level which
copied between NEAR and FAR f_nodes. Barts suggestion is to replace
those copy functions by functions
Roberto Mariottini wrote:
Hi Eric,
I don't know what an f_node is, but you have received 4 replies from:
John Price (former kernel maintainer)
- James (former kernel maintainer)
- Bart (former kernel maintainer)
- Tom (former kernel maintainer)
- Pat (former kernel maintainer and original kernel
Hi there,
If I understood correctly all the messages (and I think that, as Bart pointed out,
this discussion came time ago, and not only once), the biggest difference between
f_node and SFT is the fact that SFT are far and f_node are near.
So there is the problem to estimate the size of the
It's the original data structure used for file systems. It was designed
originally as a structure that contained a semaphore, file system type
identifier, and a union for file system data. It was simplified for the
original DOS-C/FreeDOS kernel, and changes have been made by myself and
others
Hi Eric,
I don't know what an f_node is, but you have received 4 replies from:
- James (former kernel maintainer)
- Bart (former kernel maintainer)
- Tom (former kernel maintainer)
- Pat (former kernel maintainer and original kernel author)
I just wanted to add myself :-))
Ciao
P.S.: If you stil
The simple fact is that the f_nodes structure is not needed at all.
Before I left the group several years ago, I was planning to rewrite the
kernel specifically to eliminate f_nodes and move to SFT. The reason
was precisely the incompatibility between this kernel and other programs
such as wi
Hello Eric,
> Hi, I tried to check SFT compatibility of FreeDOS, quick conclusion:
> sft_dcb is never accessed
> sft_stclust is never accessed
>...
> sft_ifsptr is never accessed (nor initialized to 0?)
you may be right. and it may be easy to replace (most of) the fnode
data by the corresponding
