Re: On PATH_MAX

[Bas Wijnen]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:38:20PM +0100, ness wrote:
> >>IMO giving no reasonable specification of latency in a case where the
> >>process supplies a real long filename is not a problem.  If the process
> >>cannot handle it, it can limit the size itself.
> >
> >No no. The file system can no longer make any specification of latency
> >for *any* file, because the act of locating *other* files may require a
> >name comparison on an arbitrarily long name along the way.
> 
> Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by 
> the caller, too?

I think the idea is that it does.  The problem is that I call a file system
server and ask for a list of files, and I never get a reply because a file
name is too long.

I still think this can be fixed by limiting the name to some client-specified
size though.  I just realised that the client should also communicate this
size to the server, so it doesn't attempt to transfer more (taking more time
than needed).

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature