On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 03:41:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 14:57, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:20:31AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 19:20, Stephen R Marenka
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > http://wiki.debian.or
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 14:57, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:20:31AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 19:20, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>
>> > http://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Kernel/Patches
>> - You may want to put a `sort' in the `find ../bugfix/m6
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:20:31AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 19:20, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Kernel/Patches
>
> A few comments:
> - If you cloned from linux-m68k.git, you don't have to do the `git
> remote add',
> as `origin'
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 19:20, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 03:07:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 15:10, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 13:38, Stephen R Marenka
>> > wrote:
>> >> So 2.6.29 has hit sid. Anyone wan
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 03:07:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 15:10, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 13:38, Stephen R Marenka
> > wrote:
> >> So 2.6.29 has hit sid. Anyone want to update the kernel patches? Also,
> >> what patches to apply
Hi Petr,
> > There's something wrong with the Atari FAT option code then - this is what
> > I get
> > with atari=yes on the first of your partitions (128MB?):
>
> 255 MB, IIRC (same sector/cluster size as 128 MB)
Right -
> > FAT (before atari): FAT bits 0 clusters 32622 sectors 65280
> > F
Hi,
> Atari GEMDOS and Atari partition programs always use 2 sectors per
> cluster. Since FAT16 can hold max 32k entries you can compute the rest
> of information from this (example: 63 MB partition needs 2 kB clusters
> to fit into 32k cluster limit so the logical sector size for 32-63 MB
> parti
Michael Schmitz píše v Čt 16. 04. 2009 v 09:45 +0200:
> There's something wrong with the Atari FAT option code then - this is what I
> get
> with atari=yes on the first of your partitions (128MB?):
255 MB, IIRC (same sector/cluster size as 128 MB)
> FAT (before atari): FAT bits 0 clusters 32622
Michael Schmitz píše v Čt 16. 04. 2009 v 01:38 +0200:
> > What if I created a disk image with 15, 31, 63, 127, 255 and 511 MB
> > partitions and sent it to you? Would you please list what partition
> > sizes are mountable with _and_ without the Atari FAT patch that we are
> > discussing here? That
Hi,
> > Small partitions I can mount as regular MSDOS FAT (-o atari=no) only,
> > unless
> > they are <32 MB (in which case it's a 16 bit FAT with few enough clusters
> > to be
> > treated as 16 bit FAT by the Atari FAT patch).
>
> I don't think I understand it.
It is a bit weird, yes. I may
Michael Schmitz píše v St 15. 04. 2009 v 03:25 +0200:
> > BTW, does it mean that there is a problem with mounting small GEMDOS
> > partitions in Linux (<32 MB?)? And at the same time you can't mount
> > larger partitions because of the logical sector size limit (>511 MB)?
>
> Small partitions I ca
Hi,
> Well, many years ago it used to be suggested to create a smallish boot
> partition and then larger data/application partition(s). I think the
> reason for this was that some of the early Atari disk drivers used to
> loose the first partition's contents occasionally.
>
> Anyway, the point i
Michael Schmitz píše v Út 14. 04. 2009 v 09:50 +0200:
> If someone could provide a disk image to test in ARAnyM, I'd be happy to give
> it a try.
I could create a disk image for testing real quick. Say with 255, 511
and 1023 MB partitions?
> At the very least, the default should be changed to
Hi,
> > If someone could provide a disk image to test in ARAnyM, I'd be happy to
> > give it a try.
>
> I could create a disk image for testing real quick. Say with 255, 511
> and 1023 MB partitions?
Reasonable sizes - as long as these are useable as GEMDOS partitions that
should
be fine.
Michael Schmitz píše v Út 14. 04. 2009 v 10:26 +0200:
> > > At the very least, the default should be changed to atari=off on modern
> > > systems
> > > like the CT60:
> >
> > Why? How is the CPU accelerator related to disk filesystem?
>
> Only in so far as no one would want to use 16 or 32 MB p
Hi Geert,
> - atari-fat
> Should this be dropped? Last time nobody spoke up to care about it
The only GEMDOS FAT partition I could mount using this code was a 16 MB one
which would have been correctly detected as 16 bit FAT by the generic code
anyway. The 12 bit FAT fallback (which is
Hi Geert,
> > I had to fix a merge conflict in atari_defconfig and multi_defconfig
> > when pulling the m68k-v2.6.29 branch (EtherNEC builtin vs. module, which is
> > the
> > correct setting?). Looks like I better restart from a fresh clone just for
> > the
> > Debian stuff.
>
> If you pulled f
Hi Geert,
> Now my git skills have been growing, I created two new branches:
> - m68k-v2.6.29
> - queue
Cool...
I had to fix a merge conflict in atari_defconfig and multi_defconfig
when pulling the m68k-v2.6.29 branch (EtherNEC builtin vs. module, which is the
correct setting?). Looks lik
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 01:48, Michael Schmitz
wrote:
>> Now my git skills have been growing, I created two new branches:
>> - m68k-v2.6.29
>> - queue
>
> Cool...
>
> I had to fix a merge conflict in atari_defconfig and multi_defconfig
> when pulling the m68k-v2.6.29 branch (EtherNEC builtin vs
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 15:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 13:38, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
>> So 2.6.29 has hit sid. Anyone want to update the kernel patches? Also,
>> what patches to apply now that we have git-based goodness?
>
> You can start with the ones on the for-nex
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 13:38, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> So 2.6.29 has hit sid. Anyone want to update the kernel patches? Also,
> what patches to apply now that we have git-based goodness?
You can start with the ones on the for-next branch.
I still have to cherry-pick the others to the (to be cr
So 2.6.29 has hit sid. Anyone want to update the kernel patches? Also,
what patches to apply now that we have git-based goodness?
Thanks,
Stephen
--
Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
22 matches
Mail list logo
