|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-02-27 17:57:58
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > I already changed it to > > 4142 (128+4014) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 461 of > 483 > > > I suppose that could be > > 4142 (128 direct, 4014 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in > loss record 461 of 483 I think the latter is better -- it gives a knowledgeable user a reasonable chance to understand what it means without reading the manual. N |