Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:58:16 +0100 (GMT) | From | Riley Williams <> | Subject | Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ? |
| |
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> I want to know if there is any significant reason why the size of >> each directory ( ext2fs) is reported as 1024b ( or a multiple of >> 1024).
> Why not ? It's real size of directory ! You have other ideas ?
Macrohard did - all directories were reported with size 0 !!!
I can also report that on my 4k block systems, I never see directories smaller than 4k in size, but that's (A) expected, and (B) desired.
I can understand the viewpoint that says the "size" of a directory is simply a count of the number of valid entries therein, but I don't agree with it.
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux | | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, | | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone | | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ * ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux * http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |