X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:28:08 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 1.7.7: upper limit to df reported available size? Message-ID: <20101212172808.GA22348@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC80DC11C1C@OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca> <20101210165930.GA5210@calimero.vinschen.de> <20101210172154.GI25347@calimero.vinschen.de> <4D026588.8090901@redhat.com> <20101212121208.GA11357@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101212121208.GA11357@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 01:12:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Dec 10 10:38, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 12/10/2010 10:21 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Dec 10 17:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> On Dec 10 11:20, Elford,Andrew [Ontario] wrote: >> >>> $ df -T /cygdrive/f/file >> >>> Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on >> >>> C: ntfs 83886076 31717608 52168468 38% /cygdrive/c >> >>> F: ntfs 11717703676 72036296 -5534201804 - /cygdrive/f >> >>> L: ntfs 6143999996 883063196 5260936800 15% /cygdrive/l >> >> [...] >> >> Hmm. OTOH, seeing the size of your FS, I'm also wondering if we should >> >> make the algorithm a bit more foolproof for the future by manipulating >> >> the value of f_frsize if the TotalAllocationUnits returned by Windows >> >> is > sizeof (fsblkcnt_t). >> > >> > No, scratch that. It wouldn't work well. I guess what we really need >> > is to redefine fsblkcnt_t to become a 64 bit type. Oh well, this >> > requires another backward compatibility hack, just like back when we >> > switched to 64 bit off_t (Cygwin 1.5). >> >> Let's do it at the same time as we change sigset_t and time_t to 64-bits >> (with knock-on effects to struct stat, among others). In other words, >> all good changes, but certainly something that will take a lot of >> planning to pull off in one go. > >It's not only planning it's also the good old, but hopelessly underrated >http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI problem. And we should not do it >unless we see a point at which Cygwin 1.7.x is really stable enough to >stay unchanged for a while, so we can mess up CVS HEAD. Oh, and, I >would really appreciate if we could do it in a collaborative effort. >Patches are more telling than thousand words. Why does sigset_t have to be 64-bits? Real-time signals? cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple