On Mar 8 06:55, Eric Blake wrote: > > f_bsize : 4096 > > f_blocks : 256 (256 * f_bsize) == 1 Meg > > f_bfree : 1339399 (real free blocks of the drive) > > f_bavail : 0 (blocks free for user under quota lore) > > > > Per standard, f_bavail shows the number of free blocks available to > > non-superuser. However, df seems to use the f_bfree value, which is, > > per standard, the number of total blocks free on the drive. I'm > > wondering if df shouldn't rather use f_bavail and f_blocks instead of > > f_bfree and f_blocks?!? > > > > What Cygwin could do is to write the FreeBytesAvailable value also into > > f_bfree, but I'm wincing at this idea since it would (unnecessarily?) > > reduce the information available in the structure. I'm not actually > > convinced this would be a good idea. > > Is it worth adding additional fields to struct statvfs to avoid loss of > information (of course, then those fields are not portable, because they > are not standardized)?
What for? The necessary information is available using the existing structure members, and there are already more structure members than information is available on Windows. I don't think it's feasible to add members for this purpose. > What does Linux do in the presence of user quotas? I have no idea, sorry. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
