Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] inotify 0.10.0 | From | John McCutchan <> | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:21:07 -0400 |
| |
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 17:10, Ray Lee wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 16:26 -0400, John McCutchan wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 01:45, Ray Lee wrote: > > > The current way pads out the structure unnecessarily, and still doesn't > > > handle the really long filenames, by your admission. It incurs extra > > > syscalls, as few filenames are really 256 characters in length. It makes > > > userspace double-check whether the filename extends all the way to the > > > boundary of the structure, and if so, then go back to the disk to try to > > > guess what the kernel really meant to say. > > > > I thought that filenames where limited to 256 characters? That was the > > idea behind the 256 character limit. > > I thought so too, as linux/limits.h claims: > > #define NAME_MAX 255 /* # chars in a file name */ > > But Robert earlier said: > > > Technically speaking, a single filename can be as large as PATH_MAX-1. > > The comment is just a warning, though, to explain the dreary > > theoretical side of the world. > > ...where PATH_MAX is 4096. > > So, got me. I believe there is some minor confusion going on.
A quick test of 'echo "" > XXXX...XXX' the filename seems to be limited to 256.
John - 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/
| |