This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 1.7.7: upper limit to df reported available size?


On Dec 12 12:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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?

I'm curious, too.  I remember that I had trouble a while back, because
tcsh didn't grok that SIGRTMAX == SIGRTMIN, but, apart from the fact
that this has been changed in the tcsh sources, I'm not sure that's
enough reason to change sigset_t.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]