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 | > | > |> 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? 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. christos