Re: [Qemu-devel] Use of PATH_MAX

[Ian Jackson]

Paul Brook writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Use of PATH_MAX"):
> On Friday 16 May 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think it would be better to invent a new name for the maximum path
> > length supported by qemu's statically-sized buffers.  This would
> > replace both the uses of PATH_MAX (in block.c, linux-user/path.c, and
> > block-vvfat.c) but also direct use of (eg) 1024 in many places.
> 
> Better would be to not have the static length buffers in the first place. 
> That's the whole reason you're seeing this problem in the first place. 

I agree that it would be better to get rid of the static buffers.  But
at the moment I'm just trying to stop a tide of PATH_MAX nonsense
enveloping the Xen semi-fork.  I don't have time right now to make
dozens of static buffers dynamically allocated.

> And yes, I do have real situation where a 1024 character buffer isn't big 
> enough.

If we changed the constant to have a different name, and used it
consistently, you could at least recompile to get a bigger limit ...

Ian.