Messages in this thread | | | From | Roland McGrath <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] avoid OPEN_MAX in SCM_MAX_FD | Date | Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
> 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 somewhere.
Thanks, Roland
- 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/
| |