Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:57:54 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ? |
| |
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, MURALI N wrote:
> Please look at the listing below. > > "/" > > drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 1024 May 28 16:40 . > drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 1024 May 28 16:40 .. > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 12288 May 4 21:35 lost+found > drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 1024 May 5 12:12 mnt > dr-xr-xr-x 33 root root 0 Jun 23 19:06 proc > > "lost+found" > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 12288 May 4 21:35 . > drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 1024 May 28 16:40 .. > > If the present scheme allocates 13 * 1024 bytes for just "." and "..", I > feel it is time to rethink the directory handling.
You *are* aware WTF lost+found is for, right? If fsck finds lost inodes it means that fs is corrupted and the last thing you want to do here is to extend a directory. lost+found is created by mkfs. Not by mkdir(2). Try to create a directory with mkdir and look at the size. 12K are there not to store '.' and '..' - they should be able to accomodate the links for lost inodes. In situation when fs is damaged. Without touching bitmaps or eating up new blocks.
Present scheme doesn't create lost+found. It is done by mkfs which has perfectly valid reason to make it larger than 1 block.
- 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/
| |