>> [...] hash the user-specified filename and use that for the 'real'
>> name. Add some special fudgery so that readdir() works.
> Sounds like Windows long filenames...
That's pretty close to how Eunice did it, back when I used Eunice.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Ca
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:58:02 +
David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:03:09AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> > > I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> > > (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> > > and that reminded m
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 05:50:56PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> > > (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> > > and that reminded me: for various reasons, many people who are doing
> > > serio
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:03:09AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:08:30 +
> David Holland wrote:
>
> > I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> > (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> > and that reminded me: fo
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:03:09AM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> > I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> > (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> > and that reminded me: for various reasons, many people who are doing
> > serious dat
On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:08:30 +
David Holland wrote:
> I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
> (physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
> and that reminded me: for various reasons, many people who are doing
> serious data collection or si
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:48:29PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | But it is better long term to move forward and allow for longer
> | names.
>
> Why?
I was recently talking to some people who'd been working with some
(physicists, I think) doing data-intensive simulation of some kind,
and th
| Even using a utf-8 encoded filename, at 5 bytes/character, that's
| still a 51 character filename, which is longer than rational - names
| >= 40 characters mean that on a standard 80 column display, ls can't
| even show
| 2 columns of names.
FWIW: the "basic multilingual plane" of Unicode (th
On Sep 27, 3:48pm, k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX
| Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:46:09 -0400
| From:chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
| Message-ID: <20110926134609.8322a97...@rebar.astron.com>
|
| | But it is
> Certainly the original 14 byte limit was occasionally a nuisance (but
> even that was better than 8+3 which was typical), but longer than
> 255?
I've run into the 255 limit. On only a few occasions, but definitely
more than zero. (About three times, I think.)
In my case it is usually files na
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:46:09 -0400
From:chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
Message-ID: <20110926134609.8322a97...@rebar.astron.com>
| But it is better long term to move forward and allow for longer
| names.
Why?
Certainly the original 14 byte limit was occas
On Sep 26, 8:42am, da...@l8s.co.uk (David Laight) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX
| On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 08:10:49PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| >
| > Because it will create a horrible mess for anything that tries to allocate
| > a struct dirent and use it. Imagine
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 08:10:49PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> Because it will create a horrible mess for anything that tries to allocate
> a struct dirent and use it. Imagine having an old library with new binaries
> or vice-verse.
Is it possible to add a named 'pad' field?
David
On Sep 25, 1:28am, jeanyves.mig...@free.fr (Jean-Yves Migeon) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: MAXNAMLEN vs NAME_MAX
| 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
| >
| > |>
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 MAXNAMLE
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
On 24.09.2011 22:03, Christos Zoulas wrote:
MAXNAMLEN = 511
NAME_MAX = 255
dirent uses MAXPATHLEN, namei uses NAME_MAX and does not allow it to exceed
that, so none of the dirent entries actually use> 255. We want to make them
consistent.
I tried to do this by versioning both kernel and userla
> MAXNAMLEN = 511
> NAME_MAX = 255
> [...] We want to make them consistent.
Do you want to increase NAME_MAX, or decrease MAXNAMLEN?
> My opinion is that [versioning userland] is not worth the trouble.
> The only programs that can fail are ones that do things like:
> char name[NAME_MAX];
>
MAXNAMLEN = 511
NAME_MAX = 255
dirent uses MAXPATHLEN, namei uses NAME_MAX and does not allow it to exceed
that, so none of the dirent entries actually use > 255. We want to make them
consistent.
I tried to do this by versioning both kernel and userland. The
kernel portion is fine, but the userla
19 matches
Mail list logo
