On Apr 20 08:42, Michal Simek wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:16:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > >> Hi guys from linux-fsdevel: Can you told us what is the right solution > >> for my problem above? > > > > "Fields that are undefined for a particular file system are set to 0". > > So what kind of fs are you running that on and is that sucker really > > defined for it? Note that if it's ramfs or tmpfs with -o nr_blocks=0, > > there is no such thing as "amount of free space", reserved for root > > or not. > I use ramfs and nfs without any -o nr_block=0 option. > That mean that for all other fs is possible to set nr_blocks=0 (f_bavail=0) and for all this cases > fsync02 test failed. That mean that make sense to test f_bavail value in LTP and if is zero > don't work with it. Am I right? Sounds like the patch is the right thing to do based on Al's quote. I would suggest modifying the patch to use fsblkcnt_t as f_bavail is defined in statvfs(2). Other than that, the patch looks good. Nate -- 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
