Re: mutt's buffy-list

[YONETANI Tomokazu <qhwt+dfly@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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 
> 					<dillon@backplane.com>

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.