Re: [PATCH] ramfs: pretend dirent sizes

[Jan Blunck]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/