From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] statfs fails with EOVERFLOW Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:36:07 +0000 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20040323133607.A473@infradead.org> References: <20040323130513.GB30984@suse.de> <20040323132127.A322@infradead.org> <20040323133019.GD30984@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5m4g-0005V1-7H for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:36:10 -0800 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.30) id 1B5m4f-0008Ch-FE for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 05:36:09 -0800 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20040323133019.GD30984@suse.de>; from okir@suse.de on Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:30:19PM +0100 Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:30:19PM +0100, Olaf Kirch wrote: > > that's why we have statfs64 in 2.6, a program with the right LFS magic > > and a recentish glibc should use if for you. > > The glibc maintainers at suse tell me it's broken at the moment. > > Second, not all apps can easily be converted to LFS support. One of the > apps that barfed was OpenOffice... be my guest and make it LFS clean :) OpenOffice is hopeless, it's one of this "if it's finally unmaintainable, opensource it" things :) > And finally, I think it's really an NFS bug. A local statfs on the file > system on the server works fine; it's just that the NFS client barfs > because it uses wtmult as the block size (and if it's a v2 mount, things > are even worse because it picks a totally arbitrary wtmult value of 512). Hmm. Why do you limit the sb_blocksize changes to 32bit architectures then? I see it doesn't trip easily for 64bit arches, but having different values for exactly the same filesystem and mount options sounds like a rather bad idea to me. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs