- if (sparse_option)
- {
- /* Check the size of the file against the number of blocks
- allocated for it, counting both data and indirect blocks.
- If there is a smaller number of blocks that would be
- necessary to accommodate a file of this size, this is safe
- to say that we have a sparse file: at least one of those
- blocks in the file is just a useless hole. For sparse
- files not having more hole blocks than indirect blocks, the
- sparseness will go undetected. */
-
- /* Bruno Haible sent me these statistics for Linux. It seems
- that some filesystems count indirect blocks in st_blocks,
- while others do not seem to:
-
- minix-fs tar: size=7205, st_blocks=18 and ST_NBLOCKS=18
- extfs tar: size=7205, st_blocks=18 and ST_NBLOCKS=18
- ext2fs tar: size=7205, st_blocks=16 and ST_NBLOCKS=16
- msdos-fs tar: size=7205, st_blocks=16 and ST_NBLOCKS=16
-
- Dick Streefland reports the previous numbers as misleading,
- because ext2fs use 12 direct blocks, while minix-fs uses only
- 6 direct blocks. Dick gets:
-
- ext2 size=20480 ls listed blocks=21
- minix size=20480 ls listed blocks=21
- msdos size=20480 ls listed blocks=20
-
- It seems that indirect blocks *are* included in st_blocks.
- The minix filesystem does not account for phantom blocks in
- st_blocks, so `du' and `ls -s' give wrong results. So, the
- --sparse option would not work on a minix filesystem. */
-
- if (ST_NBLOCKS (current_stat)
- < (current_stat.st_size / ST_NBLOCKSIZE
- + (current_stat.st_size % ST_NBLOCKSIZE != 0)))
- {
- int counter;