Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:16:48 -0700 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ramfs: pretend dirent sizes |
| |
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 09:14:04PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> >So you can seek to m*<stack-depth>+<offset> to access an offset into > >something at depth m? > > > > Yes.
Hos does that work if offset >= m?
> I disagree. Where is the information value of i_size if we always > could return 0?
Directories clearly can't have zero size, so 0 means 'special'.
Anything other than zero *might* be a real value.
> 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.
Why? And what should that upper bound be?
> 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.
lseek talks about bytes --- yes, it means for files specifically but I still don't see why we need to define more counter-intuitive semantics for directories when we don't need them.
Also, how is lseek + readdir supposed to work in general? - 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/
| |