Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:26:27 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: request for review Message-ID: <607.1011295587@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:58:19 %2B1100." <20020116155420.N487-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20020116155420.N487-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > >> Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote: >> > POSIX.1-2001 specifies st_blksize. >> >> Great, right after I get POSIX.1-1996 ;) So how does it specify st_blksize, >> then? > >The same as the quote from www.opengroup.org in the comment in vn_stat(). >It says nothing important that isn't in that quote. Well, the one thing missing in this thread is the concensus on what value to return when no value can be said to make any amount of sense for devices in general and zero is considered illegal. What's the verdict ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?607.1011295587>