From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Simek Subject: Re: [LTP] statvfs -> f_bavail Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:42:13 +0200 Message-ID: <49EC1945.1000805@petalogix.com> References: <49E759FB.70103@petalogix.com> <49E847FB.1030801@petalogix.com> <20090417173107.GA3590@refried.org> <49EC1352.6010900@petalogix.com> <20090420062642.GY26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Reply-To: michal.simek@petalogix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nate Straz , subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, John Williams , Linux Kernel list , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:27733 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751630AbZDTGmR (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:42:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090420062642.GY26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:16:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > >> Nate Straz wrote: >> >>> On Apr 17 11:12, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> don't you know what is the description of f_bavail in struct statvfs? >>>>> On my system I am getting zero for this entry that's why fsync02 failed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I track down where the problem comes from. >>>> There is problem for all fs which use simple_statfs function from >>>> fs/libfs.c. >>>> In open.c in vfs_statfs function is whole structure set to zero and then >>>> in simple_statfs not set this value. >>>> I think we should fix it in ltp code. >>>> Here is my proposed change. If is ok - I will generate proper patch. >>>> >>>> >>> If the problem is in the kernel, then it should be fixed in the kernel. >>> That's the whole point of LTP, pointing out problems in the kernel which >>> need to be fixed. Patching LTP to work around f_bavail not being set >>> correctly is not the right thing to do. >>> >>> >> :-) And what about if is the kernel code ok? :-) >> Then IMHO is the right time to fix LTP. >> >> The main question is if is or not. >> >> 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? Thanks, Michal # mount rootfs on / type rootfs (rw) proc on /proc type proc (rw) none on /var type ramfs (rw) none on /sys type sysfs (rw) 192.168.0.102:/tftpboot/nfs on /mnt type nfs (rw,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,namlen=255,hard,nointr,nolock,proto=tcp,timeo=70,retrans=3,sec=sys,addr=192.168.0.102) -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663