>> 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/