Re: mutt's buffy-list
:On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:49:13PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: :> I could fake it I guess, but programs really have no business making :> assumptions about directories based on their st_nlinks or st_size :> fields. : :At least nlinks == 2 is a hard-coded assumption for leaf directories in :various programs like find(1). You don't have to change the link count :for every file create/destroy, only directories. : :Joerg It's reasonable and doable within the current design, I'll put it on the TODO list but cannot make any promises for 2.2. I have to see how the other features are going to shape up. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: mutt's buffy-list
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 07:18:42PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01:50AM +0900, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote: > > My questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other > > platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which > > a directory can have st_size of zero? > > I don't know any filesystem where the directories have a fixed size of > 0. I don't think that should be done, it is helpful for other things. But I couldn't think of a situation where it's really helpful when directories always have non-zero size. Cheers.
Re: mutt's buffy-list
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:49:13PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > I could fake it I guess, but programs really have no business making > assumptions about directories based on their st_nlinks or st_size > fields. At least nlinks == 2 is a hard-coded assumption for leaf directories in various programs like find(1). You don't have to change the link count for every file create/destroy, only directories. Joerg
Re: mutt's buffy-list
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:49:13PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01:50AM +0900, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote: > :> My questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other > :> platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which > :> a directory can have st_size of zero? > : > :I don't know any filesystem where the directories have a fixed size of > :0. I don't think that should be done, it is helpful for other things. > : > :Nevertheless, it should likely check the link count... > : > :Joerg > > HAMMER directory entries are not applied to the directory's link count. > I'm not going to update the directory inode whenever a file is > created or deleted. > > A HAMMER directory has an st_size of zero. It isn't a regular file. > Each directory entry is a B-Tree record. > > I could fake it I guess, but programs really have no business making > assumptions about directories based on their st_nlinks or st_size > fields. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think that `sb.st_size == 0' is assuming mbox (or any other mailbox types whose messages are stored in a single file), and for other mailbox types it's a no-op as the side-effect that a st_size of a directory is greater than zero on most other filesystems. I'll ask mutt-dev people to change it to (S_ISREG(sb.st_mode) && sb.st_size == 0) || Thanks.
Re: mutt's buffy-list
:On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01:50AM +0900, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote: :> My questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other :> platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which :> a directory can have st_size of zero? : :I don't know any filesystem where the directories have a fixed size of :0. I don't think that should be done, it is helpful for other things. : :Nevertheless, it should likely check the link count... : :Joerg HAMMER directory entries are not applied to the directory's link count. I'm not going to update the directory inode whenever a file is created or deleted. A HAMMER directory has an st_size of zero. It isn't a regular file. Each directory entry is a B-Tree record. I could fake it I guess, but programs really have no business making assumptions about directories based on their st_nlinks or st_size fields. -Matt Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: mutt's buffy-list
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01:50AM +0900, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote: > My questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other > platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which > a directory can have st_size of zero? I don't know any filesystem where the directories have a fixed size of 0. I don't think that should be done, it is helpful for other things. Nevertheless, it should likely check the link count... Joerg
Re: mutt's buffy-list
On Wed, August 27, 2008 17:01, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote:
> Hello.
> Since I have switched /home to a HAMMER PFS, mutt stopped reporting
> mailboxes with new messages. Digging mutt source code, I found something
> relavant:
>
>
> mutt_buffy_check:
>
>
> if (stat (tmp->path, &sb) != 0 || sb.st_size == 0 || (!tmp->magic &&
> (tmp->magic = mx_get_magic (tmp->path)) <= 0))
> {
> /* if the mailbox still doesn't exist, set the newly created flag to
> * be ready for when it does. */
> tmp->newly_created = 1; tmp->magic = 0; tmp->size = 0; continue; }
>
>
> As HAMMER always reports st_size of directories to be 0, mutt thinks
> that the mailbox is specified in $mailboxes but doesn't exist(yet). My
> questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other
> platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which a
> directory can have st_size of zero?
SUSv3 says:
off_t st_sizeFor regular files, the file size in bytes.
For symbolic links, the length in bytes of the
pathname contained in the symbolic link.
[SHM]
For a shared memory object, the length in bytes.
[TYM]
For a typed memory object, the length in bytes.
For other file types, the use of this field is
unspecified.
Doesn't say anything about directories, so I guess mutt is wrong.
cheers
simon
mutt's buffy-list
Hello.
Since I have switched /home to a HAMMER PFS, mutt stopped reporting
mailboxes with new messages. Digging mutt source code, I found something
relavant:
mutt_buffy_check:
if (stat (tmp->path, &sb) != 0 || sb.st_size == 0 ||
(!tmp->magic && (tmp->magic = mx_get_magic (tmp->path)) <= 0))
{
/* if the mailbox still doesn't exist, set the newly created flag to
* be ready for when it does. */
tmp->newly_created = 1;
tmp->magic = 0;
tmp->size = 0;
continue;
}
As HAMMER always reports st_size of directories to be 0, mutt thinks
that the mailbox is specified in $mailboxes but doesn't exist(yet).
My questions are, is checking st_size of a directory is usual on other
platforms/filesystems? Does anyone know of other filesystems on which
a directory can have st_size of zero?
Cheers.
