On Jun 14, 2010, at 21:55 , Andre Zepezauer wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 13:09 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote: >> >> On 6/14/2010 12:46 PM, Andre Zepezauer wrote: >>> Hello Douglas, >>> >>> attached is a patch that is almost the same like yours. The only >>> difference is, that it still honours the max_virtual_slots property. >>> Consider it as untested too. >> >> Looking closer at the code, it looks like the only place the >> max_virtual_slots was still being used was in this one place. It looks >> like when the conversion from a fixed size slot list to the list_* code >> for slots was done this one location in the code was missed. If this >> is correct, then the rest of the code to parse the max_virtual_slots >> could be dropped and the opensc.conf file comments updated too. So your >> test of max_virtual_slots in the "for" loop could be dropped too. > > Yes you are right, max_virtual_slots is used only in this one place. So > it seems easy to drop this feature. On the other hand, it's not a big > deal to keep it as is. The question to answer is, if there is someone > who makes serious use it. Apparently my fault.
It would be nice to have a max upper limit for number of slots. Even though from code point of vie there would not be a table overflow it is a good practice to have the possibility to limit the resources of an applications and max_virtual_slots would be the thing. Will look into it in the morning. Best, -- Martin Paljak http://martinpaljak.net +3725156495 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
