Messages in this thread | | | From | Steffen Grunewald <> | Subject | Re: VFAT Madness | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:06:14 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
"Joe Pranevich writes" > |> Okay, we'll let's compare your origional (bad) one with the "real" |> struct for the block and see if we see asnything blatant. (I could |> easily make an error here, I'm doing this by hand as I don't have a |> compiler handy.) |> |> __s8 ignored[3]; |> __s8 system_id[8]; -- This is the MSWIN4.1 signature that it leaves. |> OSR 2. Feh. |> __u8 sector_size[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x2 (2 -> a bit low? Or am I reading |> this wrong?) Read this in opposite order, you get 0x0200 = 512 bytes - OK. |> __u8 cluster_size; -- 0x10 (16) |> __u16 reserved; -- 0x100 (256) 0x0001 - OK |> __u8 fats; -- 0x2 |> __u8 dir_entries[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x2 0x0200 = 512 - OK |> __u8 sectors[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x0 (!) |> __u8 media; |> __u16 fat_length; -- 0xa800 (43008) 0x00a8 = 168 - maybe... |> __u16 secs_track; -- 0x3f00 (16128) 0x003f = 63 - what BIOS allows |> __u16 heads; -- 0x4000 (16384) 0x0040 = 64 - ditto |> __u32 hidden; |> __u32 total_sect; -- 0x20202020 (538976288) that's four blanks, you won't have 500 million sectors (250 GB) in one partition ! so the problem seems to be in this entry - or its interpretation :-( |> |> That looks fine, I guess. No answers jump at you. ??? |> |> How about the good one? |> |> __s8 ignored[3]; |> __s8 system_id[8]; -- This is the MSWIN4.1 signature that it leaves. |> OSR 2. Feh. |> __u8 sector_size[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x2 (Same as before) |> __u8 cluster_size; -- 0x10 (16) (Ditto) |> __u16 reserved; -- 0x100 (256) (Ditto) |> __u8 fats; -- 0x2 (La da da da) |> __u8 dir_entries[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x2 (Same old, same old...) |> __u8 sectors[2]; -- 0x0 and 0x0 (Yep...) |> __u8 media; |> __u16 fat_length; -- 0xb000 (45056) 0x00b0 = 176, somewhat larger |> __u16 secs_track; -- 0x3f00 (16128) (Again) |> __u16 heads; -- 0x8000 (32768) 0x0080 = 128 - LBA addressing ??? |> __u32 hidden; |> __u32 total_sect; -- 0x20202020 (538976288) (Mitchell) OK, since this is the same junk, maybe the interpretation is wrong. |> |> Well, maybe someone who knows more about this than I do can help you |> out, this is the end of the line for me. Maybe the problem doesn't lie |> within your boot sector, but in your root directory entry? Something |> along those lines. |> |> Joe Pranevich |>
To find out why the partition won't mount it would be helpful to scandisk it - maybe the FAT signature is wrong or something like that. Unfortunately I don't recall the whole story... Perhaps some Norton tools would tell you what might be wrong :-/ -- Steffen Grunewald | email steffen@gfz-potsdam.de | fax (+49)-331-8877 520 GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Telegrafenberg A17, D-14473 Potsdam, Germany http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/ /* Disclaimer : I don't speak for my employers, they don't speak for me */
| |