Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Sep 25, 12:40am, jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost (Jean-Yves Migeon) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX

| > My vote is to bump without versioning, what's yours?
| 
| Hmm, what do you want to do there? Increase NAME_MAX or decrease MAXNAMLEN?
| 
| I would do the latter; ffs, ext2 and lfs all seem to use 255 for 
| MAXNAMLEN. So, I cast my vote for "bump without versioning".

If you decrease MAXNAMLEN you *must* version! Anyway we came from there,
and there is no reason to move backwards. The change proposed is to make
NAME_MAX match MAXNAMLEN without bumping.

christos