lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [2.6] smbfs & "du" illness


On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Because right now the number is meaningless, and the Linux client is
> > apparently better off ignoring it totally.
>
> Actually, just to be clear - the number isn't completely
> meaningless, it's the actual size on disk (from the st_blocks
> if they're available, filesize if not) rounded up to the nearest
> 1mb boundary. Just didn't want you to think we were randomly
> returning 1mb. It's a meaningful number, it's just the granularity
> that's a bit off :-).

I repeat: the Linux client is apparently better off ignoring it totally.

That makes it meaningless, Jeremy.

meaningless (vs. meaningful), nonmeaningful -- (having no meaning or
direction or purpose; "a meaningless endeavor"; "a meaningless
life"; "a verbose but meaningless explanation")

It clearly has no meaning or direction or purpose for any sane client.

After all, the only thing we can use it for is st_blocks, and since the
granularity is _so_ big, we're much better off looking at the file size
and guessing from that.

I still don't see why you argue for that totally meaningless number. As
far as I can tell, the _only_ thing it matters for is some Windows
benchmark.

Tell me again: why should the Linux client look at that number? Give me
just _one_ valid reason.

Linus
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.080 / U:1.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site