Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?

David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:25:20 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Extended f_count patch (SMP-safe handling of struct file)"
Previous message: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Maybe in reply to: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Khimenko Victor: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:46:52 +0530 (IST)
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.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

-
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/

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Extended f_count patch (SMP-safe handling of struct file)"
Previous message: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Maybe in reply to: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Khimenko Victor: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"