Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:00:42 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: "Peter J. Farley III" cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Martin Str|mberg , ceo AT nbensacomputers DOT com Subject: Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010107121357.00aa6580@pop5.banet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Peter J. Farley III wrote: > Note that the rebuilt df reports too many 1024 blocks, 326552*1024 = > 334389248 while 325888*1024 = 333709312. The difference is 664 blocks, > which I cannot explain easily. Since two versions of statfs which are supposed to be identical return different values, I think the only way to find out why is to step inside both versions with a debugger and see where does the difference come from. Perhaps there's some bug in how the transfer buffer is layed out when passing requests to the CDROM driver vie Int 2Fh. > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > EXCALIBUR_16X9_FF_NA 6729942 6729942 0 100% y:/ [snip] > 0 file(s) 0 bytes > 1 dir(s) 0.00 MB free > 6,572.21 MB total disk space, 100% in use Please make a point of showing the numbers in the same units. It is very annoying to grab a calculator or invoke Calc each time to compare the reported sizes. According to my calculations, 6,572.21 MB is exactly 6729943 bytes, so these two numbers are consistent. Is that what you wanted to say?