[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] avoid OPEN_MAX in SCM_MAX_FD
> I'd actually prefer this as part of the "remove OPEN_MAX" patch.

Ok. (But now you're going to argue with me about "remove OPEN_MAX",
and you haven't said you have any problem with changing SCM_MAX_FD,
so why make it wait?)

> That said, it actually worries me that you should call "_SC_OPEN_MAX".
> For example, I know perfectly well that I should use _SC_PATH_MAX, but a
> *lot* of code simply doesn't care. In git, I used PATH_MAX, and the reason

Ok, fine. But PATH_MAX is a real constant that has some meaning in the
kernel. It's perfectly correct to use PATH_MAX as a constant on a system
like Linux that defines it and means what it says. Conversely, OPEN_MAX
has no useful relationship with anything the kernel is doing at all.

> So, what's the likelihood that this will break some old programs? I
> realize that modern distributions don't put the kernel headers in their
> user-visible includes any more, but the breakage is most likely exactly
> for old programs and older distributions.

Well, I don't know for sure. It doesn't seem all that likely to me (not
like PATH_MAX), as there has been getdtablesize() since before there was
OPEN_MAX by that name (not to mention before there was Linux). If things
use OPEN_MAX as a constant for arrays, they're already broken unless they
call setrlimit to constrain themselves. Getting things fixed has to start


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-14 01:57    [W:0.059 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site