On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Rafael Neves <rafaelne...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > If my hypothesis about code's design is correct the patch below might > be more suitable. It brings your mib[3] fix back to vfsinit() > (reverting rev1.191) and adds one more element on vfsvars and vfsname > to account for the offset. The major drawback is that it allocates > more memory than is actually needed and as I understand memory is very > precious on some archs. Despite this drawback, it passes on the > negative test, solves the filesystem accounting problem (even with > FUSE enabled).
Hmm, I think I like you diff. But here's a challenge for you: there's a case when your diff would be better than mine, returning correct info that mine wouldn't. Do you understand your own diff well enough to be able to what that case is? Philip Guenther
