Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:56:24 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mark H. Wood" <> | Subject | Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ? |
| |
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Riley Williams wrote: [snippage] > 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.
What I think the original poster objects to is that this makes directory files different from nondirectory files, without giving a good reason. When I ls -l a text file or a program or... I see the number of useful bytes in it, but when I ls -l a directory I see the number of *allocated* bytes in it.
I suppose one could consider this a feature: it makes life difficult for people who want to interpret directory files themselves instead of letting the kernel do it. But this violates the bag-of-bytes model that is supposedly sacred. Everything is a file, but some files are more file-like than others.
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu A Brazil-nut is neatly packaged and tightly integrated. To turn it into food, you must crack and remove the shell. I find that I feel the same way about an increasing number of software products. *sigh*
- 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/
| |