Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |