On Mar 30,  6:10pm, wrstuden@netbsd.org (Bill Studenmund) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: statfs, statvfs and friends.

| > Issues [I supply my opinions...]
| >=20
| > 1. Q: what should be the old ones named __foostatfs20()?
| >    A: I say yes since there is precedence of using the last OS version
| >       supported them natively.
| 
| ?? You mean the old structures or the old calls?

both.

| The old calls stay statfs() & such, their structure should be statfs16,=20
| and you use a __RENAME() to map statfs to __statfs20(). The new calls=20
| should be __statfs20().
| 
| Note: I think you should pull this change into 2.0. :-)

Heh, then it should not be __foo20, it should be __foo16.

| Note: the number for the call is the version where the call appeared, not=
| =20
| the last one to use it. Look at how stat() is handled in sys/stat.h.

stat was changed in 1.3; the 12 was the libc version. Since then we've
changed the way we do this (accidentally).

| > 2. Q: Should we go all the way and implement statvfs()?
| >    A: I think so. statfs() is a berkeleism.
| 
| Don't forget fstatvfs() and fhstatvfs().

Of course.

| 
| >    2a. Q: If we supply statvfs(), then do we still supply statfs too?
| >        A: Not sure.
| 
| Yes.

Ok, then the question becomes is *statfs() just a libc wrapper?

| >    2b. Q: X/Open says we should use unsigned long for bsize, frsize and
| >           fsblkcnt_t for the rest. Should we do that?
| >        A: I say keep the types as I have them.
| 
| If the standards say long and it isn't stupid, I'd say use "long".

Yes we should follow the standards.

| >    2c. Q: bsize in statfs() has been the fragment size; bsize in statvfs()
| > 	  is the block size, and frsize is the fragment size. Should we go
| > 	  the statvfs() way.
| >        A: I propose go that way too.
| 
| Ick. That's be redefining what bsize is. I'm not sure about it.

Well, the wrapper in libc can dtrt.

| > 3. Q: I added more stats, favail [statvfs has it too], is there anything =
| else
| >       we need?
| >    A: ???
| > 4. Q: Should we change sys_getstatfs() to take size_t instead of long as
| >       the second arg.
| >    A: I think so.
| 
| No thoughts on those.

Okay. Thanks for the feedback.

christos