Re: 64 bit quantities in statfs ?

2003-08-26 Thread David Schultz
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:04:40 -0700, David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Yep, looks broken. In the POSIX standard, the functionality of statfs() is provided by statvfs(), so implementing the latter may be a way out that doesn't involve

Re: 64 bit quantities in statfs ?

2003-08-25 Thread David Schultz
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote: As part of the DragonFly effort we are going to increase the mount path limit from 80 chars to 1024. This will change the statfs structure. I thought I would adopt the 64 bit changes that 5.x has made to keep things synchronized.

Re: 64 bit quantities in statfs ?

2003-08-25 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:04:40 -0700, David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Yep, looks broken. In the POSIX standard, the functionality of statfs() is provided by statvfs(), so implementing the latter may be a way out that doesn't involve breaking any ABIs. statfs() is a lot more useful

Re: 64 bit quantities in statfs ?

2003-08-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : In order to grow statfs() we need to rev libc. It might be : appropriate to do that in the 5.2 time frame, if we are still : anticipating that 5.2 will be the -stable crossover point. RE team? I think that

64 bit quantities in statfs ?

2003-08-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
As part of the DragonFly effort we are going to increase the mount path limit from 80 chars to 1024. This will change the statfs structure. I thought I would adopt the 64 bit changes that 5.x has made to keep things synchronized. Except... there don't appear to be any 64