Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

On 25.09.2011 00:57, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 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.

Yup, I forgot about getdents(2) compat.

BTW, why would it be necessary to version? d_name is the last element of 
struct dirent; I can't see how d_name content could be bigger than 256 
(including NULL) anyway, so only those that copy d_name string with 
MAXNAMLEN size directly (instead of using _PC_NAME_MAX, NAME_MAX or 
strlen(3)) are in trouble, no?

--
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost