Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757363AbZDTXG4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:06:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756367AbZDTXGp (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:06:45 -0400 Received: from smtp0.av-mx.com ([137.118.16.56]:38398 "EHLO smtp0.av-mx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751742AbZDTXGo (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:06:44 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 408 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:06:44 EDT Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:59:42 -0400 From: Nate Straz To: Michal Simek Cc: Al Viro , subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, John Williams , Linux Kernel list , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [LTP] statvfs -> f_bavail Message-ID: <20090420225942.GB3590@refried.org> References: <49E759FB.70103@petalogix.com> <49E847FB.1030801@petalogix.com> <20090417173107.GA3590@refried.org> <49EC1352.6010900@petalogix.com> <20090420062642.GY26366@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <49EC1945.1000805@petalogix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49EC1945.1000805@petalogix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1272 Lines: 26 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/