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 _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
