l4-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On PATH_MAX


From: ness
Subject: Re: On PATH_MAX
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02:36 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051031)

Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:38:20PM +0100, ness wrote:

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.

Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by the caller, too?


I think the idea is that it does.  The problem is that I call a file system
server and ask for a list of files, and I never get a reply because a file
name is too long.

I still think this can be fixed by limiting the name to some client-specified
size though.  I just realised that the client should also communicate this
size to the server, so it doesn't attempt to transfer more (taking more time
than needed).

Thanks,
Bas

The problem Jonathan pointed out is that *others* will delay. This is not the case, as the server will be multithreaded.
--
-ness-




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]