When run duf with a path, result is not expected (linux_armv7 on rpi4)

[CharlieLiuQian]

Files in the path

pi@pi4:~ $ exa /mnt/240G/pt --tree /mnt/240G/pt ├── Collins COBUILD (CN).mdd ├── Collins COBUILD (CN).mdx ├── Collins COBUILD (CN).png └── text ├── test1 └── test2

E.g. 1

pi@pi4:~ $ duf /mnt/240G/pt ╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ │ 1 local device │ ├────────────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┬──────┬────────────┤ │ MOUNTED ON │ SIZE │ USED │ AVAIL │ USE% │ TYPE │ FILESYSTEM │ ├────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────────┼──────┼────────────┤ │ /mnt/240G │ 219.1G │ 73.3G │ 134.6G │ 33.5% │ ext4 │ /dev/sdb1 │ ╰────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────────┴──────┴────────────╯

E.g. 2

pi@pi4:~ $ duf /mnt/240G/pt/* ╭───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ │ 4 local devices │ ├────────────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┬──────┬────────────┤ │ MOUNTED ON │ SIZE │ USED │ AVAIL │ USE% │ TYPE │ FILESYSTEM │ ├────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────────┼──────┼────────────┤ │ /mnt/240G │ 219.1G │ 73.3G │ 134.6G │ 33.5% │ ext4 │ /dev/sdb1 │ │ /mnt/240G │ 219.1G │ 73.3G │ 134.6G │ 33.5% │ ext4 │ /dev/sdb1 │ │ /mnt/240G │ 219.1G │ 73.3G │ 134.6G │ 33.5% │ ext4 │ /dev/sdb1 │ │ /mnt/240G │ 219.1G │ 73.3G │ 134.6G │ 33.5% │ ext4 │ /dev/sdb1 │ ╰────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────────┴──────┴────────────╯ Show 4 lines. I think it's because there are 3 files and 1 directory

Result of 'du'

pi@pi4:~ $ du /mnt/240G/pt/ 4 /mnt/240G/pt/text 13616 /mnt/240G/pt/

[IGLOU-EU]

Hi, this is expected, duf is "a better 'df' alternative" and not ""a better 'du' alternative" ;)

$ df /var/lib/dbus/
Filesystem     1K-blocks     Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/nvme0n1p2  65478604 57278204   4828576  93% /

$ df /var/
Filesystem     1K-blocks     Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/nvme0n1p2  65478604 57278204   4828576  93% /

[CharlieLiuQian]

Sorry for my mistake

[muesli]

@CharlieLiuQian Don't worry, I kinda understand the confusion. I guess we could think about de-duplicating the resulting list at least.

[Lan-ce-lot]

/assign @muesli

@CharlieLiuQian Don't worry, I kinda understand the confusion. I guess we could think about de-duplicating the resulting list at least.

[muesli]

/assign @muesli

@Lan-ce-lot Are you planning to work on this?

[Lan-ce-lot]

/assign @muesli

@Lan-ce-lot Are you planning to work on this?

Yes, maybe I can try to solve this.