Re: 1571 blocks free

From: A. Fachat <>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 07:18:11 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Am 27. Mai 2013 02:06:45 schrieb
> 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.


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2013-05-27 06:00:03

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.