Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:18:26 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ? |
| |
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> David S. Miller writes: > > From: MURALI N <murali.n@tatainfotech.com> > > >> 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). > > > > Because this is the "block size" of the filesystem, the directory > > space is allocated in units of this. > > One could say the same for regular files, so this doen't really > explain why directory sizes are poorly reported.
Albert, look at the ext2/ufs/ffs directory layout. You'll see the reason. Blocks *are* filled. Completely. Fresh directory (after mkdir) looks so: <inumber><size of 1st record><length of name (1)><name (".")><slack> <inumber><size of 2nd record><length of name (2)><name ("..")><slack> <inumber (0, i.e. free><size of the 3rd record><slack> Each block is filled with records. Some records are marked free. Records may have a slack in the end. That's it. There is no meaningful sub-block boundary.
- 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/
| |