> 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]; > strcpy(name, d->d_name); This sounds as though you are contemplating increasing NAME_MAX. > sizeof(d->d_name) does not change. It is just that d_namelen can be > > 255 (NAME_MAX). Only programs that use NAME_MAX to store directory > entries can fail. Not quite. Such things can also find their way into code in subtler ways. For example, I've writen code that knows it can store a directory entry length in an unsigned char (which amounts to assuming NAME_MAX <= UCHAR_MAX). I think all the recent examples of that I've written have been FFS-specific and therefore safe (if I'm reading things right, FFS uses a single octet to store directory entry length on disk), but I'm probably not the only one who's done such stuff. > My vote is to bump without versioning, what's yours? I probably agree with you. But what's the motivation for increasing NAME_MAX rather than decreasing MAXNAMLEN? /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
