Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:28:08 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.7.7: upper limit to df reported available size?
Message-ID: <20101212172808.GA22348@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
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> <20101212121208 DOT GA11357 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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