X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Authenticated:	#27081556
X-Provags-ID:	V01U2FsdGVkX188rftHWGU83XWbDIBBbrj1LxMgaEtHliUP7MLt7c
	VGaKaxviFEJFif
From:	Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Value stored in cache_blksize if _is_remote_drive fails
Date:	Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:41:13 +0200
User-Agent:	KMail/1.9.10
References:	<201203111650 DOT 53344 DOT juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> <83haxvxegr DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <CAA2C=vDw6_=TVAUpsAa=WgB0-MpbBLNZJop_d1KjyFADXYUsNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<CAA2C=vDw6_=TVAUpsAa=WgB0-MpbBLNZJop_d1KjyFADXYUsNA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<201203311441.13365.juan.guerrero@gmx.de>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted:	0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q2VCihjs025601
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2012 schrieb Ozkan Sezer:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
> >> From: Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
> >> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:50:53 +0100
> >>
> >>   if (!cache_blksize[d])
> >>   {
> >>     if (_is_remote_drive(d))  /* A = 0, B = 1, C = 2,  etc. */
> >>     {
> >>       /* Default remote drives to 4K block size, to improve performance.
> >>        *
> >>        * Also the size returned by statfs() may not be correct. Testing
> >>        * against files shared by Samba 2.0.10 on Linux kernel 2.2.19
> >>        * returned a 32K block size, even though the ext2 filesystem
> >>        * holding the share share had a 4K block size. */
> >>       cache_blksize[d] = 4096;
> >>     }
> >>     else
> >>     {
> >>       /* No entry => retrieve cluster size */
> >>       if (statfs(path, &sbuf) != 0)
> >>       {
> >>         /* Failed, pass error through */
> >>         return -1;
> >>       }
> >>
> >>       cache_blksize[d] = sbuf.f_bsize;
> >>     }
> >>   }
> >> -- code end --
> >>
> >>
> >> If _is_remote_drive returns with a value different from 0 then cache_blksize[d]
> >> is set to 4096.  The issue is that _is_remote_drive may return with 1 if d is a
> >> remote drive but also it may return with -1 if the function fails for drive
> >> number d.  In both cases cache_blksize[d] = 4096.  The question arises if this
> >> is a bug or a feature?  Drive "d" does not exist but a valid block size is
> >> assigned to cache_blksize[d] at the same time the errno (= ENODEV) set by
> >> _is_remote_drive may get lost in future operations.
> >
> > There's not enough context in what you show to make up my mind whether
> > this is a bug or a feature.  Specifically, it's not clear why it would
> > be better to do something different when _is_remote_drive fails.
> >
> > Perhaps you could show a couple of use cases where this does some
> > harm.
> >
> > Thanks.
> 
> What is the status of this issue?
> 
> --
> O.S.
> 
> 


This was not a bug report, it was question.  As pointed out by Eli
the current behaviour does not really hurt.  IMHO there is no reason
to change any thing in this code snippet.  From my point of view the
issue is closed.

Regards,
Juan M . Guerrero

- Raw text -