Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: NGROUPS 2.6.2rc2 | From | Panu Matilainen <> | Date | Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:11:35 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 00:17, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Although I do believe that it would be better written as > > > > > > #define MAXGROUPS (1000) /* Arbitrary, but we have to limit it somehere */ > > > > > > if ((unsigned) info->ngroups > MAXGROUPS) > > > return -ETOOEFFINGLARGE; > > > > > > as I absolutely _despise_ code that tries to be too generic. > > > > > > What is it with CS classes that have removed "common sense" from the > > > equation? > > > > OK, there are two easy answers to this. I can re-work it with a simple 32k > > limit that needs to be recompiled to change, or I can add a sysctl to > > control it (it appeared in an early version of this patch). > > I guess static limit is okay for this...
Maybe static limit is enough but it's more than just a bit annoying when you hit that <limit>+1 mark. Oh well, just upping the current limit *a lot* would make life easier for some of us.
- Panu -
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |