X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:24:48 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 1.7.7: upper limit to df reported available size? Message-ID: <20101213092448.GB10566@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC80DC11C1C AT OntExch3 DOT ontario DOT int DOT ec DOT gc DOT ca> <20101210165930 DOT GA5210 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20101210172154 DOT GI25347 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4D026588 DOT 8090901 AT redhat DOT com> <20101212121208 DOT GA11357 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20101212172808 DOT GA22348 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101212172808.GA22348@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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