> I'd actually prefer this as part of the "remove OPEN_MAX" patch.
Ok. (But now you're going to argue with me about "remove OPEN_MAX", and you haven't said you have any problem with changing SCM_MAX_FD, so why make it wait?) > That said, it actually worries me that you should call "_SC_OPEN_MAX". [...] > For example, I know perfectly well that I should use _SC_PATH_MAX, but a > *lot* of code simply doesn't care. In git, I used PATH_MAX, and the reason [...] Ok, fine. But PATH_MAX is a real constant that has some meaning in the kernel. It's perfectly correct to use PATH_MAX as a constant on a system like Linux that defines it and means what it says. Conversely, OPEN_MAX has no useful relationship with anything the kernel is doing at all. > So, what's the likelihood that this will break some old programs? I > realize that modern distributions don't put the kernel headers in their > user-visible includes any more, but the breakage is most likely exactly > for old programs and older distributions. Well, I don't know for sure. It doesn't seem all that likely to me (not like PATH_MAX), as there has been getdtablesize() since before there was OPEN_MAX by that name (not to mention before there was Linux). If things use OPEN_MAX as a constant for arrays, they're already broken unless they call setrlimit to constrain themselves. Getting things fixed has to start somewhere. Thanks, Roland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
