On 2013-05-27, at 07:18, A. Fachat wrote: >> 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. I am not sure I understand.. "blocks free" data for side 1 blocks is indeed stored on 18:00. Blocks from track 18 are indeed unconditionally omitted when calculating final BLOCKS FREE message. Why should this prevent usage of sectors 1-18 from track 53? -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2013-05-27 12:01:23
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.