Re: [PATCH] ramfs: pretend dirent sizes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Chris Wedgwood wrote:

So the size you want to reflect is n*<stack-depth> i take it?  Where
in this case n is 20?

So you can seek to m*<stack-depth>+<offset> to access an offset into
something at depth m?


Yes.

The i_size of a directory isn't covered by the POSIX standard. IMO,
it should be possible to seek in the range of i_size and a following
readdir() on the directory should succeed.

With what defined semantics?  What if an entry is added in between
seek and readdir?


You have the same problem with regular files. This is a user and not a kernel problem.


Why?  It seems perfectly reasonable that we can return 0 in such
cases.  Zero seems to make more sense as 'magical/unknown' than say
any other arbitrary value.


I disagree. Where is the information value of i_size if we always could return 0? IMO it should be at least an upper bound for the "number" of informations that could actually be read (in terms of a seek offset) like it is in the case of regular files. Better, if it is a strict upper bound so that you can seek to every value smaller than i_size. For this purpose the i_size of directories doesn't need to reflect any unit.

Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux