--/DkgDsqJFFamjKX0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:33PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> I can't think of any, except the one already cited (compatability with
> userland code that "knows" PIDs are in the range [1..30000]).

Then that userland code is just silly. We provide pid_t for a good
reason. If it can't ever break four digits, why are we wasting 32
bits on it?

> Personally, I don't think that reason is enough (though it might be
> nice to make PID_MAX settable at kernel config time, so people who are
> stuck with such code can build kernels that "work" with it).

That does seem polite. :^>

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--/DkgDsqJFFamjKX0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjxQF8gACgkQ9ehacAz5CRpUSgCcDbaF1HxCGU+3qxFNvBRceEbJ
ydcAnjp5DpahExBt3h46yWGkZcgrk6L3
=/rc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/DkgDsqJFFamjKX0--