tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


On 25.09.2011 00:57, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:40am, (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

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index