Re: [PATCH]: newfs(8) FS_OPTSPACE vs FS_OPTTIME bug

2003-01-27 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 01:42:58PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote: Any objections to a diff below? We should be moving away from magic numbers to #defined constants, not the otherway around. Index: newfs/newfs.c === RCS file:

Re: [PATCH]: newfs(8) FS_OPTSPACE vs FS_OPTTIME bug

2003-01-27 Thread David Schultz
Thus spake Maxim Konovalov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: newfs(8) incorrectly claims that FS_OPTTIME is unavailable when minfree is less than MINFREE. MINFREE is defined in ufs/ffs/fs.h: #define MINFREE 8 But relevant code in ufs/ffs/ffs_alloc.c uses hardcoded value: 288 if (fs-fs_minfree

[PATCH]: newfs(8) FS_OPTSPACE vs FS_OPTTIME bug

2003-01-23 Thread Maxim Konovalov
Hello, newfs(8) incorrectly claims that FS_OPTTIME is unavailable when minfree is less than MINFREE. MINFREE is defined in ufs/ffs/fs.h: #define MINFREE 8 But relevant code in ufs/ffs/ffs_alloc.c uses hardcoded value: 288 if (fs-fs_minfree = 5 || 289 fs-fs_cstotal.cs_nffree 290