tech-userlevel archive

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

Re: MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX

To: tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost
Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX
From: David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 20:50:21 +0000

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 09:10:34AM +0200, tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost wrote:
 > Shouldn't be MAXPATHLEN be defined as PATH_MAX - 1?

No. They're the same. The existence of some old code where somebody
didn't read the definition carefully (or that predates a clear
definition) doesn't change that. Not sure why you think it should...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost

Follow-Ups:
- Re: MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX
  - From: tlaronde

References:
- MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX
  - From: tlaronde

Prev by Date: Re: Sanitizing (canonicalising) the block device name in mount_ffs ??
Next by Date: Re: Sanitizing (canonicalising) the block device name in mount_ffs ??
Previous by Thread: MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX
Next by Thread: Re: MAXPATHLEN vs PATH_MAX
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index