Jeff Morriss wrote: >>> I think a value of 50000 or 65535 would make sense for >>> RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES. We could also just print a warning like "Wow! >>> That's a lot of files!" instead of forcibly capping the value. >> I would think that if we continue to support files:0 (unlimited files) >> then it makes more sense to just put out a warning. That would be >> better than forcing them to choose between unlimited (and possibly >> running out of disk space) and N files (which, as in this users case, >> wasn't enough). > > Well, maybe not since we have to store all those file names...
I increased RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES to 100000 in r32998, along with printing warnings when the number is large or if we change it. -- Join us for Sharkfest ’10! · Wireshark® Developer and User Conference Stanford University, June 14-17 · http://www.cacetech.com/sharkfest.10/ ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
