Re: statvfs -> f_bavail

[Nate Straz <nate-ltp-q5Rx+M6Tjo1AfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>]

On Apr 20 08:42, Michal Simek wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:16:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> Hi guys from linux-fsdevel: Can you told us what is the right solution
> >> for my problem above?
> >
> > "Fields that are undefined for a particular file system are set to 0".
> > So what kind of fs are you running that on and is that sucker really
> > defined for it?  Note that if it's ramfs or tmpfs with -o nr_blocks=0,
> > there is no such thing as "amount of free space", reserved for root
> > or not.
> I use ramfs and nfs without any -o nr_block=0 option.
> That mean that for all other fs is possible to set nr_blocks=0 (f_bavail=0) and for all this cases
> fsync02 test failed. That mean that make sense to test f_bavail value in LTP and if is zero
> don't work with it. Am I right?

Sounds like the patch is the right thing to do based on Al's quote.  I
would suggest modifying the patch to use fsblkcnt_t as f_bavail is
defined in statvfs(2).  Other than that, the patch looks good.

Nate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and 
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. 
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p