An importanta patch for glibc 2.1.1

[H.J. Lu]

> 
> 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.

It doesn't matter. If we have f_frsize, "df" will use it with
f_blocks. Also people may use f_bsize for I/O. We have to make
both happy.


H.J.