Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:55:12 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: /proc/partitions question Message-ID: <20031023085512.GV1653@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:21:43PM +0200, erik DOT cumps AT icos DOT be wrote: > Sorry, lost the previous mail so can't continue the thread. > > I took a look at the sources as cgf suggested and > have the following question: > > in fhandler_proc.cc revision 1.36, > in function format_proc_partitions() : > > after getting the drive geometry with > 'IOCTL_DISK_GET_DRIVE_GEOMETRY' > the size of the disk is calculated in bytes and this number is > right-shifted 6 bits, so that's a division by 64 and that maps > with the scaling difference of 16 between df and /proc/partitions. > > likewise after getting the drive's partition layout with > 'IOCTL_DISK_GET_DRIVE_LAYOUT' > the length of each parititions (which is in bytes) is again > right-shifted 6 bits. > > So why the right-shift 6 instead of 10 which would map > with a blocksize of 1K? Thanks for tracking this down. I've applied a patch to Cygwin. You should find the corrected version in the next developers snapshot. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/