RE: Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread Bart Oldeman
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

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread James Tabor
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

RE: Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread aitor . sm
s the work before Eric sets about to it. Aitor - Mensaje Original - Remitente: Pat Villani [EMAIL PROTECTED] Destinatario: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Martes, Noviembre 2, 2004 3:00pm Asunto: Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed??? >The simple fa

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread Pat Villani
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

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread Roberto Mariottini
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

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread Pat Villani
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

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-02 Thread tom ehlert
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

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-01 Thread Bart Oldeman
Hi Eric, > Is that correct? I think SFT-messing programs like Windoze will not be > happy in particular about all those uninitialized cluster values, the > missing DCB pointer, and missing dir entry info. The share / ifs stuff > is probably less interesting or set by SHARE / IFSdrivers directly, >

Re: [Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-01 Thread James Tabor
Hi, Eric Auer wrote: Hi, I tried to check SFT compatibility of FreeDOS, quick conclusion: sft_dcb is never accessed sft_stclust is never accessed sft_relclust is never accessed sft_cuclust is never accessed sft_dirdlust (sic!) is never accessed sft_diridx is never accessed sft_bshare is never acces

[Freedos-kernel] unused SFT fields <-> f_nodes not needed???

2004-11-01 Thread Eric Auer
Hi, I tried to check SFT compatibility of FreeDOS, quick conclusion: sft_dcb is never accessed sft_stclust is never accessed sft_relclust is never accessed sft_cuclust is never accessed sft_dirdlust (sic!) is never accessed sft_diridx is never accessed sft_bshare is never accessed sft_ifsptr is ne