[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On PATH_MAX
From: |
Michal Suchanek |
Subject: |
Re: On PATH_MAX |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:40:51 +0100 |
On 11/8/05, Jonathan S. Shapiro <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 19:06 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:42:31PM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > > It can be done, but the file system in question is unable to make any
> > > reasonable specification of latency, and we are now done with any
> > > consideration of even soft real time for this file system.
> >
> > 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.
>
I think the answer is the same as with the many entries case: No if
you choose appropriate data structure :)
Thanks
Michal
--
Support the freedom of music!
Maybe it's a weird genre .. but weird is *not* illegal.
Maybe next time they will send a special forces commando
to your picnic .. because they think you are weird.
www.music-versus-guns.org http://en.policejnistat.cz
- Re: On PATH_MAX, (continued)
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Bas Wijnen, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, ness, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, ness, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, ness, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, ness, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/10
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/09
- Re: On PATH_MAX,
Michal Suchanek <=
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/08
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/08
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/08
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/08
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/08
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/08