From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262123AbTJNBCG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:02:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262126AbTJNBCG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:02:06 -0400 Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com ([216.239.45.4]:28579 "EHLO 216-239-45-4.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262123AbTJNBCE (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:02:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:00:51 -0700 From: Frank Cusack To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml Subject: Re: nfs fstat st_blocks overreporting Message-ID: <20031013180051.A8501@google.com> References: <20031013075316.A16032@google.com> <16266.50390.93346.47602@charged.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <16266.50390.93346.47602@charged.uio.no>; from trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no on Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:29:26AM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:29:26AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>>>> " " == Frank Cusack writes: > > > While you know I disagree that s_blocksize should be wtmult > > (ie, it is wtmult?wtmult:512 and I think it should be > > MAX(rsize,wsize)), in any event the blocks used reporting is > > incorrect in that it assumes a 512 byte blocksize. > > Frank, > > man 2 stat > > i_blocks a.k.a. stat->st_blocks is _defined_ to be in 512byte > units. It bears no relation to the st_blksize. If you don't like that, > spec then by all means appeal to the POSIX committee that wrote > it. (You probably wouldn't be the first to do so) > > Pending the outcome of such an appeal, though, the patch must be > rejected... I'm an idiot. /fc