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

MURALI N (murali.n@tatainfotech.com)
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:12:40 +0530 (IST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: V Ganesh: "redundant code in 2.3.8 buffer.c"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database"

:
:Why not ? It's real size of directory ! You have other ideas ?
:

Okay, leave things be. What i suggest is that during fsck runs,
holes in the directory entries can be processed.

-
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: V Ganesh: "redundant code in 2.3.8 buffer.c"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: File systems are semantically impoverished compared to database"