X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:12:08 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.7.7: upper limit to df reported available size?
Message-ID: <20101212121208.GA11357@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC80DC11C1C AT OntExch3 DOT ontario DOT int DOT ec DOT gc DOT ca> <20101210165930 DOT GA5210 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20101210172154 DOT GI25347 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4D026588 DOT 8090901 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D026588.8090901@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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 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.


Corinna

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

--
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