reasonable inndf patch?
Katsuhiro Kondou
kondou at nec.co.jp
Sat Dec 4 16:09:30 UTC 1999
In article <9912011751.AA09596 at ritual.org>,
Uli Zappe <uli at ritual.org> wrote;
} as I've told you I've been plagued by totally irregular and irreproducible
} throttlings of innd by innwatch because inndf wrongly reports 0 bytes of free
} space (on NEXTSTEP 3.3).
If so, inndf for NEXTSTEP 3.3 is useless, and I think
it'd be better to comment out relevant lines in
innwatch.ctl rather than modifying inndf.c. I think
current inndf.c would notice system error, if STATFUNCT()
occasionally fails.
--
Katsuhiro Kondou
More information about the inn-workers
mailing list