🚀 go-pugleaf

Walt Morrey wrote:

>    reg1.reg_EAX = 0x440D;
>    reg1.reg_EBX = drive + 1;         // 1 = A, 2 = B, etc
>    reg1.reg_ECX = 0x4848;            // try upper=48 for FAT32
>    reg1.reg_EDX = (DWORD)&ParamBlock;
>    fResult = DeviceIoControl ( hDevice, VWIN32_DIOC_DOS_IOCTL,
>       &(reg1), sizeof (reg1),
>       &(reg1), sizeof (reg1),
>       &cb, 0);
>    if ( !fResult )
>    {
>       reg1.reg_ECX = 0x0848;         // try FAT16, or 12 & Lock/Unlock - 0x48

	Is it written somewhere that the registers remain unchanged?
Especially when the same registers are used for return values?

>       fResult = DeviceIoControl ( hDevice, VWIN32_DIOC_DOS_IOCTL,
>          &(reg1), sizeof (reg1),
>          &(reg1), sizeof (reg1),
>          &cb, 0);


>BOOL WriteSectors(int drive, DWORD startinglogicalsector, int numberofsectors, char*buffer)
>{
>       char _devicename[] = "\\\\.\\A:";
>       _devicename[4] += drive;

	 _devicename[4] = 'A' + drive;

>       hDevice = CreateFile(_devicename,
>             GENERIC_READ, FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE,
>             NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, 0, NULL);

	Are you going to write it or just read it?

>       SetFilePointer (hDevice, (startinglogicalsector*512), NULL, FILE_BEGIN);
>       if (!WriteFile (hDevice, buffer, 512*numberofsectors, &bytesread, NULL) )

	Is this kosher?   Thought you were supposed to use
DeviceIoControl.

>    else
>    {
>   // code for win 95/98
>// Creating handle to vwin32.vxd (win 9x)



>       if ( !fResult )
>       {
>          SetLock( 1, hDevice, drive );        // 0 to Lock
>          CloseHandle(hDevice);
>          return FALSE;
>       }
>       SetLock( 1, hDevice, drive );        // 0 to Lock
>       CloseHandle(hDevice);
>       return TRUE;

	That looks redundant to me....
       SetLock( 1, hDevice, drive );        // 0 to Lock
       CloseHandle(hDevice);
       return fResult;