Probably, the reason is to still have a working KINFO_PROC_SIZE even
if the user modifies NGROUPS_MAX?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 08:12:45AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > What's the reason why KI_NGROUPS should be different from NGROUPS_MAX?
>
> N
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> What's the reason why KI_NGROUPS should be different from NGROUPS_MAX?
None -- ideally, they would be the same. I was reminding him that if he
updated one, he should be sure to update the other.
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0400, Robert Wat
What's the reason why KI_NGROUPS should be different from NGROUPS_MAX?
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> Note this will break binary compatibility for xucred. Note also that this
> may have fascinating effects in NFS environments. Note also that you'll
> probab
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> Note this will break binary compatibility for xucred. Note also that this
> may have fascinating effects in NFS environments. Note also that you'll
> probably want to update KI_NGROUPS also. No idea if it will affect NIS.
As
Note this will break binary compatibility for xucred. Note also that this
may have fascinating effects in NFS environments. Note also that you'll
probably want to update KI_NGROUPS also. No idea if it will affect NIS.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
[EMAIL
On 29-Sep-01 Jesper Skriver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm involved in a project, where we need the ability for users to
> be in more than 16 groups, on those boxes we're using the below
> patch, any objections to committing it ?
It bloats ucred's. Might as well just leave it as it is. If people need t
Hi,
I'm involved in a project, where we need the ability for users to
be in more than 16 groups, on those boxes we're using the below
patch, any objections to committing it ?
Index: sys/sys/syslimits.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/s
