Am 27. Mai 2013 02:06:45 schrieb firstname.lastname@example.org: > > On 2013-05-26, at 21:21, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: > > >> 1571 supposedly does the same for track 18 but it wastes almost whole > >> track 53 and allocates in the BAM. Hence the question: why bother > >> allocating if those blocks are not taken into account anyway? Maybe > This might make sense then. If there is no special handling of this track > in the code, then the easiest way to disallow various routines from writing > sectors there was probably to just allocate all of them. But still - why > waste 18 perfectly healthy blocks? Looks somewhat like a quick kludge just > to push the drive out.. Isn't the block free count for BOTH sides/BAMs stored in the first BAM? Then if track 18 is skipped, there can be no free block on track 53. André Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2013-05-27 06:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.