On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 03:34:53PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > That wasn't the question -- the question is what the semantics of > > sem_open() names are supposed to be. > > They don't really have any. They are an independent namespace and the > ENAMETOOLONG error was actually added retrospective. It is not even > clear why any of the VFS based limits are relevant...
Well, there's got to be *some* limit. (Unless I guess you adopt the Hurd's notions about letting a user process consume the entire kernel heap in one go...) Less than 32 or preferably 64 seems unreasonably small to me for just about anything; this isn't 1985 any more :-/ There doesn't appear to be any downside, other than memory use, to raising the limit. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
