Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 22:25:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) Cc: joerg@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sbin@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/savecore savecore.c Message-ID: <199610142025.WAA07535@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <96Oct13.144850pdt.177477@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> from Bill Fenner at "Oct 13, 96 02:48:37 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Bill Fenner wrote: > > However, he missed the part to compute the kernelsize in kilobytes, > > so the minfree consideration was now overcautious. > Sorry, I thought I had made sure that everything was in K. Unless I > missed something, the patch in the PR causes minfree to be specified in > bytes, which is not what the man page says. Yep, the patch in the PR broke with the tradition. My own (not committed) version also used byte values for everything (with `dumpsize' also enlarged to off_t), to avoid the implicit truncation to the lower kilobyte value. However, i multiplied the value from the minfree file with 1024 when reading it, in order to comply with the man page and the historic behaviour. > In fact, if I re-read my patch, it looks like spacefree and totfree are > kept in units of K-bytes, kernelsize and dumpsize are kept in units of > bytes but needed = (dumpsize + kernelsize) / 1024, so needed is in units > of K-bytes, and minfree is specified in the file as being specified in > K-bytes. What am I missing? Nothing. I think my brain has already been turned off last night... Who's got the pointing hat these days? Pass it on to me! <:-) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610142025.WAA07535>