Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-25,: Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?

# 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: Pavel Machek: "Re: analysis: securelevels vs securebits with capabilities"
- Previous message: V Ganesh: "redundant code in 2.3.8 buffer.c"
- In reply to: Khimenko Victor: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
- Next in thread: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"

:
: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: Pavel Machek: "Re: analysis: securelevels vs securebits with capabilities"
- Previous message: V Ganesh: "redundant code in 2.3.8 buffer.c"
- In reply to: Khimenko Victor: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
- Next in thread: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"