Re: [LTP] statvfs -> f_bavail

[Michal Simek]

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?

Thanks,
Michal

> Nate
>   


-- 
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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/