From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Guangwen Feng <fenggw-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:55:30 +0800
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] commands/mkfs: Added new testcase to test mkfs(8)
 command.
In-Reply-To: <20151103113923.GB5795@rei>
References: <1446032247-18207-1-git-send-email-fenggw-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20151102152807.GC28478@rei> <56389879.6070101@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20151103113923.GB5795@rei>
Message-ID: <5638A0B2.1060600@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

On 2015/11/03 19:39, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>>>> +	mkfs_umount
>>>> +
>>>> +	if [ $blocknum -gt "$2" ]; then
>>>> +		return 1
>>>> +	fi
>>>
>>> So the size we get as $2 is in kB and df -T reports 1k blocks shouldn't these
>>> be equal, or are there any reserved block in play?
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, "$blocknum" here is equal to struct statfs'f_blocks, which denotes total
>> data blocks in filesystem(df uses statfs(2) to get this info) and does not contain
>> some metadata in filesytem, e.g. ext3's journal space size. 
> 
> Ok, then we should check for lower bound as well. Something as blocknum
> is greater than 90% of size or similar.
> 

OK, I see, thanks!
Please ignore the v2 I just sent, I will email a v3 with lower bound check.

Best Regards,
Guangwen Feng