"Richard L. Hamilton" <rlha...@smart.net> wrote:
> Cute idea, maybe. But very inconsistent with the size in blocks (reported by
> ls -dls dir).
> Is there a particular reason for this, or is it one of those just for the
> heck of it things?
>
> Granted that it isn't necessarily _wrong_. I just checked SUSv3 for stat()
> and sys/stat.h,
> and it appears that st_size is only well-defined for regular files and
> symlinks. So I suppose
> it could be (a) undefined, or (b) whatever is deemed to be useful, for
> directories,
> device files, etc.
You could also return 0 for st_size for all directories and would still be
POSIX compliant.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
