On Fri Mar 2 12, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:38:22PM +0000, Alexander Best wrote: > > hi there, > > > > i just noticed that du will not accepts something like the following: > > > > du -t-500M > > > > whereas > > > > du -t500M > > > > will work. i've attached a patch, which makes unit suffixes in connection > > with > > negative thresholds possible. > > > > I don't get it. I just ran both instances of what you have above without > your patch on 8-STABLE i386 and both work as intended. Are you seeing > something I am not ?
you are right. there seems to have been a du change between 8-STABLE and HEAD, or maybe even in expand_number(). when i run 'du -t-500M /' on HEAD i get: du: invalid threshold: -500M usage: du [-Aclnx] [-H | -L | -P] [-h | -k | -m ] [-a | -s | -d depth] [-B blocksize] [-I mask] [-t threshold] [file ...] ... i'll investigate some more. i also found that on 8-STABLE du isn't working properly in all cases. try the following: mkdir empty ; cd empty ; mkdir empty2 running 'du -t-1M' should report empty2, but it doesn't. running 'du -t-2M' does. according to 'ls -la' an empty directory is 4096 byte. so 'du -t-4097' should report the empty dir; however it doesn't. du seems to quite broken when it comes to the -t option. have a look at the following: mkdir empty3; cd empty3; du -h -t1M reports 2,0k . that's completely wrong, since i instructed du to only display entries > 1 megabyte. cheers. alex > > -- > ;s =; _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
