Re: 2.5.86+: sizes of almost all files in sysfs are 4k?

[Alex Riesen]

Patrick Mochel, Tue, May 13, 2003 18:58:34 +0200:
> > If the size is not simple/possible to calculate, maybe using 0
> > would be an option for the cases where the size doesn't carry
> > any information (like in procfs)?
> 
> It was 0 before, which works fine for cat(1). By hardcoding the size, some 
> bugs are exposed, since the size is reset for some reason when you try to 
> open the file for writing, even if open(2) returns an error. 
> 
> Ideally, we should be calculating the size, and using that. However, that 
> would involve keeping type information about the file around, which we 
> don't currently do. Research/patches in this area would be greatly 
> appreciated. 

we could also pretend the files are sparse, and return zero-filled data.
Though, i fear, this will also confuse something.

-alex