An importanta patch for glibc 2.1.1

[Andreas Schwab]

hjl@varesearch.com (H.J. Lu) writes:

|> > 
|> > hjl@varesearch.com (H.J. Lu) writes:
|> > 
|> > |> We need this patch for glibc 2.1.1.
|> > 
|> > IMHO this patch is more appriopriate.  According to SunOS4 the f_bsize
|> 						      ^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Can we drop SunOS4 now?

No, because Linux is still at bit similar: it also has only struct statfs
and no struct statvfs.

|> > member of struct statfs is the "fundamental file system block size" which
|> > corresponds directly to f_frsize from statvfs.  Any comments?
|> > 
|> 
|> It is not what Solaris 7/SunOS5 says. It has:
|> 
|>      u_long      f_bsize;             /* preferred file system block size */
|>      u_long      f_frsize;            /* fundamental filesystem block
|>                                          (size if supported) */

Exactly.  struct statfs does not have f_frsize, and thus IMHO f_bsize
plays exactly the same r\^ole in statfs as f_frsize does in statvfs.
Names don't count, only meaning matters.

|>      fsblkcnt_t  f_blocks;            /* total # of blocks on file system
|>                                          in units of f_frsize */
|> 
|> It is the similar to The Single UNIX (R) Specification, Version 2:
|> 
|>     unsigned long f_bsize    file system block size
|>     unsigned long f_frsize   fundamental filesystem block size
|>     fsblkcnt_t    f_blocks   total number of blocks on file system in
|> 			     units of f_frsize
|> 
|> Why do we have to follow SunOS4?

Because Linux is similar.

|> > 
|> > Thu Apr  8 14:29:14 1999  Andreas Schwab  <schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
|> > 
|> > 	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fstatvfs.c (fstatvfs): Set f_frsize, not
|> > 	f_bsize, in struct statvfs from f_bsize in struct statfs.
|> > 
|> 
|> So my vote is NO.

Please think about it again.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.cs.uni-dortmund.de                      completely different"
schwab@gnu.org