Re: [2.6] smbfs & "du" illness

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:20:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > Because right now the number is meaningless, and the Linux client is 
> > apparently better off ignoring it totally.
> 
> Actually, just to be clear - the number isn't completely
> meaningless, it's the actual size on disk (from the st_blocks
> if they're available, filesize if not) rounded up to the nearest
> 1mb boundary. Just didn't want you to think we were randomly
> returning 1mb. It's a meaningful number, it's just the granularity
> that's a bit off :-).

I repeat: the Linux client is apparently better off ignoring it totally.

That makes it meaningless, Jeremy. 

  meaningless (vs. meaningful), nonmeaningful -- (having no meaning or
	direction or purpose; "a meaningless endeavor"; "a meaningless
	life"; "a verbose but meaningless explanation")

It clearly has no meaning or direction or purpose for any sane client.

After all, the only thing we can use it for is st_blocks, and since the 
granularity is _so_ big, we're much better off looking at the file size 
and guessing from that.

I still don't see why you argue for that totally meaningless number. As 
far as I can tell, the _only_ thing it matters for is some Windows 
benchmark.

Tell me again: why should the Linux client look at that number? Give me 
just _one_ valid reason.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/