On Jan 11 07:58, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/11/2011 02:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > I can not reproduce the effect, at least not on W7, but apparently it > > happens on some systems. So, given that the directory size is > > irrelevant for all practical purposes anyway, and given that there's no > > application which has problems with a directory size of 0, should Cygwin > > just always set st_size to 0 for directories? Independent of the > > underlying FS? > > Always returning 0 size for all directories, regardless of FS, is > certainly the simplest workaround. I'd say go for it.
What I'm missing is the information if the allocation size is affected as well. You can't see that when using ls(1), but you can by using stat(1). So, here's the question: For a directory which changes size in one of the observed scenarios, what does stat print? Does it look like this: $ stat weird_dir | grep Size Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 65536 directory $ stat weird_dir | grep Size Size: 4096 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 65536 directory or does it look like this: $ stat weird_dir | grep Size Size: 0 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 65536 directory $ stat weird_dir | grep Size Size: 4096 Blocks: 4 IO Block: 65536 directory ? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
