On 10/10/2012 12:15 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:07:51PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
* show the byte units
At the beginning it was so. But the space required was greater than 80
columns. Moreover the allocation space is in multiply of 4KiB, so showing
the number in bytes doesn't add any information. The documentation clearly
stated that if -k is passed the units are KiB.
Keeping the line at most 80 sounds reasonable, but if the overflow is
only because of 4x ' ' or units, we can try to squeeze the empty space
between columns.
There is no space:
A 64 bit number requires 20 characters;
$ python -c "print len(str(2<<64))"
20
The "Chunk_type" and Mode column require 12+8 = 20 characters. So
20 + [Chunk_type+Mode]
20 + [Size_(disk)]
20 + [Size_(logical)]
20 + [Used]
2 [spaces between the columns Size(disk)
<-> Size_(logical> <-> Used]
Requires more than 80 characters. This is the reason to switch to 1k
unit. the "df" default is the same.
[...]
* Chunk_type -> Type ?
There was another person who made the same proposal. However I don't like
it: what mean "type" alone ? We are showing the chunk information.
And the person said "what does chunk mean to the user? it's an
internal detail." (IIRC). There's also 'type' for the raid profiles,
ambiguity of the term 'type' will lead us to confusion when we'll talk
to users. The term 'profile' is AFAIK widely used in the context of
RAIDs.
Sorry I cannot understand your conclusion... I am not sure if you are
suggesting to replace 'Mode' with 'Profile' ? Anyway I like it. With
another ACK I will update it.
Regarding 'Chunk_type', I am open to change it, but I veto 'Type'. Some
suggestions:
- Allocation_type
- Block_type
- Block
- Allocation_mode
- Area
- Area_type
- Area_mode
* Size_(logical) is misaligned with the numbers underneath
It is not an error. I did so because the constraint of 80 column when the
unit is set to KiB. Otherwise I have to maintain two completely set of
printf depending by the unit used.
But I have to agree to the fact that it is not very pleasant to read.
Let's fix it.
Fixed
* Used (in the summary) is in logical units, I needed to hand calculate
[snip]
I am not against to change but I would like to see other
people to support your suggestion.
* revert the order of Min and Max in Free_(Estimated)
[snip]
What this the reasons ? I don't find Max..Min more (or less) reasonable than
Min..Max. Again, I am not against your request but I would like to see other
people support your suggestion.
Seems that the only way I can get possitive/negative feedback on those
suggestions is after I send a patch that implements them.
I cannot agree more :-)
[...]
I maintained df as per Chris request; originally I wanted to call it
disk-usage. I renamed the function disk_usage to disk_free as compromise. My
opinion is that df should renamed disk-free....
Too long to type, this is a frequent command and part of people's habit,
I'm completely with Chis here.
Even I was not convinced, I did accept Chris's suggestion...
[...]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
