Re: On PATH_MAX

[Bas Wijnen]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:14:18AM -0700, Christopher Nelson wrote:
> Besides which, how is that functionally different from having a bounded
> string copy with a more sophisticated protocol that transfers one
> portion at a time?  I don't think that putting that complexity into
> kernel state is a good idea.  IMHO.

Kernel state?  It most definitely doesn't belong there indeed.  Containers are
managed by physmem, not by the kernel.  They are useful for other cases and
need to be implemented anyway.  Using them in this case should not be very
complex, but obviously not supporting names longer than some arbitrary limit
is less complex.

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