Ienup Sung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm afraid that might not be possible due to I'm quite sure
> many people wouldn't like the change of the max name length.
In general, programs that do not deal with this are either completely broken or
do not yet follow POSIX rules to call pathconf(name, _PC_NAME_MAX)
for a correct value.
> I also think there might be issues with NFS too.
>
> I have not yet though circulated the idea you originally suggested
> or the entier project idea fully although good numbner of people in
> ON consolidation know about it...
OK, please take into account that we already have one filesystem (hsfs with
Joliet) that currently needs to prevent access to very long filenames because
usr/src/uts/common/fs/{dnlc.c lookup.c pathname.c} limit MAXNAMELEN
to 255. It would be a good idea to find a solution for this problem.
I believe the best solution is to allow MAXNAMELEN to be as long as MAXPATHNAME.
> Joerg Schilling wrote at 12/01/06 03:21:
> > Ienup Sung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Re the file name length, having a big enough one will obviously
> >>help as long as there is a clear way to keep the backward compatibility
> >>and also with minimal breakage. Sticking to the current user land
> >>length definitions is also another way, i.e., no change regarding
> >>the length for the existing (traditional) file systems.
> >
> >
> > So does this mean that we may expect a change in
> > usr/src/uts/common/fs/{dnlc.c lookup.c pathname.c} soon?
> >
> > What's about NFS? Is there a problem with extending MAXNAMELEN?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
