From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp209.alice.it ([82.57.200.105]:35861 "EHLO smtp209.alice.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932656Ab2JCQSB (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:18:01 -0400 Message-ID: <506C6531.4060700@inwind.it> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:17:53 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Hugo Mills , Chris Mason , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH][BTRFS-PROGS][V1] btrfs filesystem df References: <1349264596-9383-1-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <20121003115615.GB25498@carfax.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121003115615.GB25498@carfax.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/03/2012 01:56 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > Looks good. Only a few comments, inline. > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 01:43:14PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >> $ ./btrfs filesystem df --help >> usage: btrfs filesystem disk-usage [-d][-s][-k] [..] >> >> Show space usage information for a mount point(s). >> >> -k Set KB (1024 bytes) as unit >> -s Don't show the summary section >> -d Don't show the detail section > > These are kind of logical, but I think would be hard to remember > the right way round. I would suggest swapping the actions of the > switches, and rewording the help: > > -s Show only summary section > -d Show only detail section Yes this make sense... > >> $ ./btrfs filesystem df / >> Path: / >> Summary: >> Disk_size: 72.57GB > > ^ space between the value and the > unit (as ISO says), throughout. > This also makes it easier to > parse, if anyone wants to. > > Also, use kB, MB, GB, TB for powers-of-ten based units, and KiB, > MiB, GiB, TiB for powers-of-two based units, please. I don't care > which you report in, but please do make the distinction. (And note > that it's kB with a lower case k, but KiB with an upper case K). This > brings us in line with the relevant ISO and IEEE standards. I forgot to reply you when you raised this question the first time. Even though I am inclined to accept your suggestions, this change is not related to my patches. My code uses the functions print_sizes(), which is quite old (about 2008). This function is used in a lot of places. This suggested to address this issue with another patch. > >> Disk_allocated: 25.10GB >> Disk_unallocated: 47.48GB >> Logical_size: 23.06GB >> Used: 11.01GB >> Free_(Estimated): 55.66GB (Max: 59.52GB, Min: 35.78GB) >> Data_to_disk_ratio: 92 % >> >> Details: >> Chunk-type Mode Chunk-size Logical-size Used >> Data Single 21.01GB 21.01GB 10.34GB >> System DUP 80.00MB 40.00MB 4.00KB >> System Single 4.00MB 4.00MB 0.00 >> Metadata DUP 4.00GB 2.00GB 686.93MB >> Metadata Single 8.00MB 8.00MB 0.00 > > Why are the field headings here using - where the field headings in > the first section used _? Should you be using _ in both places? 2 persons highlighted that :-( ... I will update the code > > Hugo. >