[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE |
Date: |
22 Feb 2004 21:35:24 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
address@hidden (Peter Seebach) writes:
> In message <address@hidden>, Jim Meyering writes:
> >address@hidden (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> >...
> >> This seems wrong. The user setting $BLOCKSIZE presumably intends it to
> >
> >If you spell it `BLOCK_SIZE', then it should work.
>
> Hmm. When did this spelling change?
On 1998-06-29. But the only use of BLOCKSIZE before then was
BLOCKSIZE='HUMAN' and BLOCKSIZE='SI'; no other values were supported,
and that old usage (which itself was introduced in two changes:
1996-01-20 and 1997-11-30) wasn't described in the texinfo documention
and wasn't consistent with the --block-size long option.
As the 1998 change caused the environment variable to have the same
interpretation as the "--block-size" long option, I thought it more
consistent at the time to spell the environment variable "BLOCK_SIZE"
rather than "BLOCKSIZE".
> It seems to me like it would be reasonable to use $BLOCKSIZE if
> $BLOCK_SIZE isn't set, simply because it's widely used elsewhere.
Something like that sounds reasonable, except what is BLOCKSIZE
supposed to mean when it's widely used elsewhere? Do you have a
specification somewhere? I couldn't find one. I did notice behavior
quirks, though. For example:
openbsd-3.2$ BLOCKSIZE=1048576 df .
Filesystem 1048576-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
sic:/export/ford 17239 9695 7371 57% /whatever
coreutils-5.2.0$ BLOCK_SIZE=1048576 df .
Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
sic:/export/ford 17240 9696 7372 57% /whatever
Note that the BSD "df" says "1048576-blocks" whereas the coreutils
"df" says "1M-blocks". (There are some rounding inconsistencies,
too.)
While we're on the subject, it appears to me that there is a bug in
how du/df/ls etc. treat invalid environment-value settings. For example:
$ ls -ld
drwxr-xr-x 40 eggert eggert 4096 2004-02-22 20:17 .
$ BLOCK_SIZE=ridiculous ls -ld
drwxr-xr-x 40 eggert eggert 4 2004-02-22 20:17 .
It seems to me that "ls" etc. should ignore ridiculous settings like
that, instead of having them be equivalent to BLOCK_SIZE=1024. Does
that sound right to you? If so, I can prepare a patch. (But this
might be related to the issue of what BLOCKSIZE actually means on
those other platforms.)
- df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Peter Seebach, 2004/02/20
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Jim Meyering, 2004/02/20
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Peter Seebach, 2004/02/21
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Peter Seebach, 2004/02/23
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Paul Eggert, 2004/02/23
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Peter Seebach, 2004/02/23
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Paul Eggert, 2004/02/25
- Re: df & du should honor $BLOCKSIZE, Peter Seebach, 2004/02/26