From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10212311741.AA01665@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Problem with df reporting the wrong sizes [PATCH]
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 11:41:26 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <E18Szay-0000eR-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Dec 30, 2002 01:05:32 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

I am more worried about compatibility and correct values than showing
some DOS specific sector size.  Don't all unix-like OSes use 512 or 1024
for block sizes?  Do they assume they are the same for all disks?  Do
all of our calls (from stat, fstat, statvfs, etc) return the same value?

I would favor always block size of 512 since it is simple, fast and 
compatible.