[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 64bits & df



On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:50:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > ---
> > > nis_syscall(0x29240, 0x58)              = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > write(2, "df: ", 4)                     = 4
> > > write(2, "`/\'", 3)                     = 3
> > > write(2, ": Invalid argument", 18)      = 18
> > > write(2, "\n", 1)                       = 1
> > > nis_syscall(0x29298, 0x58)              = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > write(2, "df: ", 4)                     = 4
> > > write(2, "`/proc\'", 7)                 = 7
> > > write(2, ": Invalid argument", 18)      = 18
> > > write(2, "\n", 1)                       = 1
> > > nis_syscall(0x292f0, 0x58)              = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > write(2, "df: ", 4)                     = 4
> > > write(2, "`/dev/pts\'", 10)             = 10
> > > write(2, ": Invalid argument", 18)      = 18
> > > write(2, "\n", 1)                       = 1
> > > nis_syscall(0x29348, 0x58)              = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
> > > write(2, "df: ", 4)                     = 4
> > > write(2, "`/sys\'", 6)                  = 6
> > > write(2, ": Invalid argument", 18)      = 18
> > > write(2, "\n", 1)                       = 1
> > 
> > i can confirm this behavior on 3 differents sparcs with sid, woody uses statfs.
> 
> Do you have nis listed in /etc/nsswitch.conf?

Just the default for netgroups, commenting out that line doesn't
differ, file have same content on x86 as sparc:

# /etc/nsswitch.conf
#
# Example configuration of GNU Name Service Switch functionality.
# If you have the `glibc-doc' and `info' packages installed, try:
# `info libc "Name Service Switch"' for information about this file.

passwd:         files
group:          files
shadow:         files

hosts:          files dns
networks:       files

protocols:      files
services:       files
ethers:         files
rpc:            files

netgroup:       nis


Can be a 2.6 problem? i don't have 2.4 anymore...

-solca



Reply to: