Nate Straz wrote: > On Apr 17 11:12, Michal Simek wrote: > >>> don't you know what is the description of f_bavail in struct statvfs? >>> On my system I am getting zero for this entry that's why fsync02 failed. >>> >>> >> I track down where the problem comes from. >> There is problem for all fs which use simple_statfs function from >> fs/libfs.c. >> In open.c in vfs_statfs function is whole structure set to zero and then >> in simple_statfs not set this value. >> I think we should fix it in ltp code. >> Here is my proposed change. If is ok - I will generate proper patch. >> > > If the problem is in the kernel, then it should be fixed in the kernel. > That's the whole point of LTP, pointing out problems in the kernel which > need to be fixed. Patching LTP to work around f_bavail not being set > correctly is not the right thing to do. > :-) And what about if is the kernel code ok? :-) Then IMHO is the right time to fix LTP. The main question is if is or not. Hi guys from linux-fsdevel: Can you told us what is the right solution for my problem above? Thanks, Michal > Nate > -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng) PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
