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

Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:51:03 +0400 (MSD)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: [off-topic] Microsoft IP Stack"
Previous message: Khimenko Victor: "Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available,"
Maybe in reply to: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Reply: Riley Williams: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"

In <Pine.LNX.4.04.9906231041430.26647-100000@blrmail.tatainfotech.com> MURALI N (murali.n@tatainfotech.com) wrote:
> Hello,
> 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).

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

-
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: Alan Cox: "Re: [off-topic] Microsoft IP Stack"
Previous message: Khimenko Victor: "Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available,"
Maybe in reply to: MURALI N: "why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"
Reply: Riley Williams: "Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ?"