X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:01:47 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: partition size incorrectly reported
Message-ID: <20060308140147.GU3184@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <1ACB95D81B24969895E72CC1 AT red-2> <20060308125503 DOT GR3184 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <440ED903 DOT 7000605 AT byu DOT net> <20060308132346 DOT GS3184 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20060308133729 DOT GT3184 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <440EE246 DOT 3030909 AT byu DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <440EE246.3030909@byu.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Mar  8 06:55, Eric Blake wrote:
> > f_bsize  : 4096
> > f_blocks : 256		(256 * f_bsize) == 1 Meg
> > f_bfree  : 1339399	(real free blocks of the drive)
> > f_bavail : 0		(blocks free for user under quota lore)
> > 
> > Per standard, f_bavail shows the number of free blocks available to
> > non-superuser.  However, df seems to use the f_bfree value, which is,
> > per standard, the number of total blocks free on the drive.  I'm
> > wondering if df shouldn't rather use f_bavail and f_blocks instead of
> > f_bfree and f_blocks?!?
> > 
> > What Cygwin could do is to write the FreeBytesAvailable value also into
> > f_bfree, but I'm wincing at this idea since it would (unnecessarily?)
> > reduce the information available in the structure.  I'm not actually
> > convinced this would be a good idea.
> 
> Is it worth adding additional fields to struct statvfs to avoid loss of
> information (of course, then those fields are not portable, because they
> are not standardized)?

What for?  The necessary information is available using the existing
structure members, and there are already more structure members than
information is available on Windows.  I don't think it's feasible to
add members for this purpose.

>   What does Linux do in the presence of user quotas?

I have no idea, sorry.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/