On 25.09.2011 00:57, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:40am, jeanyves.mig...@free.fr (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.mig...@free.fr
