Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:14:04 +0200 | From | Jan Blunck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ramfs: pretend dirent sizes |
| |
Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > So the size you want to reflect is n*<stack-depth> i take it? Where > in this case n is 20? > > So you can seek to m*<stack-depth>+<offset> to access an offset into > something at depth m? >
Yes.
>>The i_size of a directory isn't covered by the POSIX standard. IMO, >>it should be possible to seek in the range of i_size and a following >>readdir() on the directory should succeed. > > With what defined semantics? What if an entry is added in between > seek and readdir? >
You have the same problem with regular files. This is a user and not a kernel problem.
> > Why? It seems perfectly reasonable that we can return 0 in such > cases. Zero seems to make more sense as 'magical/unknown' than say > any other arbitrary value. >
I disagree. Where is the information value of i_size if we always could return 0? IMO it should be at least an upper bound for the "number" of informations that could actually be read (in terms of a seek offset) like it is in the case of regular files. Better, if it is a strict upper bound so that you can seek to every value smaller than i_size. For this purpose the i_size of directories doesn't need to reflect any unit.
Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |