This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] syscalls.cc for statfs/df under Win9x problem
- To: Cygwin Patches <cygwin-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] syscalls.cc for statfs/df under Win9x problem
- From: Mark Paulus <mark dot paulus at wcom dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:10:29 -0700
- Reply-to: Mark Paulus <mark dot paulus at wcom dot com>
Yes, I did try it with UNCs, and it works fine. I was having a
problem with the GetDiskFreeSpace() working correctly
with UNC's, but GetDiskFreeSpaceEx() works great.
Unfortunately, I can't test all possible combinations... My
test environments consist of a Lan with Athlon/WinME,
AMD K6-3+/WinME and AMD K6-3+/Debian 2.2 / SMB.
My other environment is a Lan with Intel P-II/Win2K,
P-II / OS/2, and lots of different NT/OS/2 boxes, and a
Novell server. But I don't have any WinMe/NT Combinations.
I will follow up on the rights assignment document. I guess that
will put this on hold for now...
And I will fix the formatting issues when I re-submit the patch,
after I get the assignment taken care of.
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:51:55 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>Chris, is that patch small enough to go in without copyright assignment?
>
>On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 02:43:03PM -0700, Mark Paulus wrote:
>> Enclosed is a patch to fix the 2GB limit problem under Win9x
>> exhibited by df. The only problem I can see is a failure with
>> repeated calls to a SMB share under WinME. The first call to
>> statfs() gets good values, but the 2nd call returns some bogus
>> values. I do not have access to a SMB share under Win2K
>> to see if it fails there also.
>
>Mark,
>
>I asked this already once you've send your first version. Did you
>try your patch with UNC paths? I'm asking because MSDN states
>that UNC paths must end with a backslash when using this function
>(\\server\share\). It would be really nice if you could have a look.
>
>And two nags:
>
>- Please remove the cvsId patch. We don't use it anywhere in the
> sources.
>
>- Could you please rearrange your patch so that it's according
> to the GNU coding standard (http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_toc.html)
>
> For example, not so: func( param ), func(param)
> but so: func (param)
>
> and not so: if () {
> body
> } else {
> }
> or if ()
> {
> body
> }
> else
> {
> }
> but so: if ()
> {
> body
> }
> else
> {
> }
>
>Thanks,
>Corinna
>
>--
>Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
>Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
>Red Hat, Inc.