From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar  2 10:33:33 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233)
	id A2C96106566C; Fri,  2 Mar 2012 10:33:33 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:33:33 +0000
From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
To: Jason Hellenthal <jhellenthal@dataix.net>
Message-ID: <20120302103333.GA88008@freebsd.org>
References: <20120301233822.GA19709@freebsd.org>
	<20120302063659.GB31588@DataIX.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120302063659.GB31588@DataIX.net>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: small change to du,
	so it will accepts unit suffixes for negative thresholds
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:33:33 -0000

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 =;