TUHS May 2003

tuhs@tuhs.org

30 participants
38 discussions

by Aharon Robbins

The V7 ls.c code: > >>> long > >>> nblock(size) > >>> long size; > >>> { > >>> return((size+511)>>9); > >>> } > >> I wrote: > > In fact, the V7 calculation is only > > an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could > > generate too large a result. Greg wrote: > A block is a block. If it's allocated, it's all there (at least in > the Seventh Edition). It doesn't make any difference that some of the > space in the block may not represent valid data. You're missing my point. Consider a C program along these lines: int main(void) { int fd = creat("/some/file", 0600); lseek(fd, 123456789L, 0); /* absolute seek */ write(fd, "x", 1); close(fd); } After running this program, the `/some/file' file now looks rather large. But it only has one block allocated to it. However, the V7 nblock() function computes a number somewhat larger than one. Thanks, Arnold

21 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] sco v. ibm

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original, genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002 that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors? Certainly there are electronic copies around; it existed (perhaps still exists) as a PDF file on Caldera's web site. I have a hardcopy in my own files, next to the old SCO Ancient UNIX Source Code agreement for which I paid hard cash (as we used to call the US dollar). But if there is an original somewhere, that might carry more weight. Is Bill Broderick still in an appropriately high position at Caldera or SCO? Norman Wilson Toronto ON

21 years, 2 months

[pups] Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org

by Warren Toomey

All, At 7am on Saturday 31st May (local time), the machine which runs this mailing list will be temporarily shut down as major power and UPS alterations are done in the machine room. I am informed that this should only take 12 hours, but you know what computers and such are like. Therefore, you should expect that this mailing list will be unavailable over the weekend of the 31st May / 1st June. Normal services will be resumed shortly :-) Cheers, Warren

21 years, 2 months

Temporary loss of minnie.tuhs.org

by Warren Toomey

21 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] V7 ls -s option

by Aharon Robbins

> From: Dennis Ritchie <dmr(a)plan9.bell-labs.com> > To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: [TUHS] (no subject) > Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:10:30 -0400 > > > The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total > >blocks, includes any indirect blocks. > > >However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the > > struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses > > > long > > nblock(size) > > long size; > > { > > return((size+511)>>9); > > } > > >So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken? > > Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving > the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible > from the 7th edition stat. I'm not sure when (or by > whom) the st_blocks member was added. Thanks for confirming this. In fact, the V7 calculation is only an approximation in another sense; a file with large holes could generate too large a result. System III doesn't have st_nblocks either. > > While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the > > list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default. > > When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files? > > UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first). > Both tended to use more . files. > > Dennis As already pointed out, earlier Research code only checked the first character for being '.'; I later looked at the V6 ls.c. The System III ls.c is essentially the V7 one, but with comments added, and -l printing both owner and group, with -g and -o to turn off group or owner from -l. Also, support for FIFOs. The nblock() calculation is considerably more complicated, and would seem to actually get the number of indirect blocks. At first glance, it looks though like a file with holes would still confuse it. Nothing like engaging in Software Archeology... :-) Thanks, Arnold

21 years, 2 months

question about V7 ls(1) vs. sys/stat.h and ls.c

by Kirk McKusick

The st_blocks field was first added to the stat structure in 4.2BSD (4.1b really) as part of the overhaul to add the new filesystem. I added it because the variable filesystem blocksize made it difficult to compute the amount of storage dedicated to a file. Kirk McKusick

21 years, 2 months

Re: [TUHS] sco v. ibm

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

T. M. Sommers: If [Broderick] was [SCO's or Caldera's] agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to recognize now; they are bound by his statement. Assuming it can be proven that the statement was officially made, which is why I ask after properly signed hardcopy rather than the PDF file we have all seen. Probably there are documents hidden away in SCO's files--there must have been some paper trail leading to Broderick's letter--but that is likely to be harder to track down from outside. I don't doubt Broderick really wrote that letter, nor that he was authorized to make the statement. But the problem before us isn't truth, it's proof. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

21 years, 2 months

The nameless horror of dotfiles [was (no subject)]

by Dennis Ritchie

The omniscient Norman seems to have nailed me: > Judging by the manuals, Research did it first. In every manual from > 1/e to 6/e, the entry for ls(I) has this description for the -a option: > list all entries; usually those beginning with "." are suppressed I suspect that in v7 (where .thing was indeed listed by default) we decided that since .thing was a real file in the directory it was better to list it instead of hiding it by default. (Seeing . and .. seemed seldom interesting, however). I was solely (and much more recently) responsible for the lack of subject header in my earlier reply. Dennis

21 years, 2 months

(no subject)

by Dennis Ritchie

> The V7 ls(1) man page says that the -s option, which prints total >blocks, includes any indirect blocks. >However, the V7 struct stat didn't have the st_blocks member in the > struct stat, and the code in ls.c uses > long > nblock(size) > long size; > { > return((size+511)>>9); > } >So, is this just a case of the man page being mistaken? Yes, it looks like a manual bug. Retrieving the true number of indirect blocks isn't possible from the 7th edition stat. I'm not sure when (or by whom) the st_blocks member was added. > While I'm at it, the V7 ls -a option only adds . and .. to the > list; apparently all other dot files were printed by default. > When did ls change such that -a applied to all dot files? UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first). Both tended to use more . files. Dennis

21 years, 2 months

The nameless horror of dotfiles [was (no subject)]

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Dennis Ritchie, on ls discarding all names beginning with .: UCB or USL did this (I'm sure which first). Both tended to use more . files. Judging by the manuals, Research did it first. In every manual from 1/e to 6/e, the entry for ls(I) has this description for the -a option: list all entries; usually those beginning with "." are suppressed I always thought this was just a quick-and-dirty way to skip the . and .. entries; the sort of shortcut that was common in the good old days when everything was written in assembly language. That the USL system kept the old convention probably reflects its PWB heritage; both the latter system and that of Berkeley had already invented lots of configuration files clumsily hidden by putting . at the beginning-- more than ls had options at the time--and I guess they felt it was better to let sleeping dots lie. Incidentally, in 1/e ls(I) had a whopping five options: l, t, a, s, and d, each with the same meaning as now (except that -s is described simply as `give size in blocks for each entry' with nothing about accounting for indirect blocks or other overhead). Who says we haven't made decadence, er, progress over the years? Norman Wilson Toronto ON PS: I've lost track. Did the original Subject: line of this thread of conversation get lost because it began with a dot?

21 years, 2 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS May 2003