X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:54:35 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Strange fstatat / stat behavour on directories causing tar "file changed as we read it" error Message-ID: <20110111095435.GF3413@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3501944D149644D394474781054F5E98 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <4D2783A3 DOT 5000008 AT redhat DOT com> <4D27C896 DOT 30202 AT cygwin DOT com> <265F601A437E4A03BE8C665BE7470721 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <4D27D66F DOT 8030201 AT cygwin DOT com> <4D28F1AC DOT 1070907 AT laposte DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4D28F1AC.1070907@laposte.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Jan 9 00:22, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > Le 08/01/2011 04:13, Larry Hall (Cygwin) a écrit : > > > > On 1/7/2011 9:39 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > > > > > >> Here it takes about 2 - 5mins for what ever is causing the 0 size after a > >> find to start to happen. Prior to that after the find all dirs show > >> 8192 for > >> size in an ls. > > > > Ah, that's interesting. I see no such time-lag here. > > > > IMHO, the first time the directory size is read, the size used by > FindFirstFile/FindNextFile (or something like that :-) is zero'ed, > then the directory size is updated while the directory is traversed. > also the directory size doesn't seem to shrink on entry removal, > even after a reboot. 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? 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