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

Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]



On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:31 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:41:39AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 00:15 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > > Hurd doesn't support PATH_MAX.  So trying to allocate memory based on
> > > PATH_MAX isn't going to work on Hurd.  However, with glibc (and with
> > > POSIX 1003.1-2008) we can simply mark the destination buffer to realpath
> > > as NULL and the appropriate amount of memory will be automatically
> > > allocated.  Not all systems support this, though.
> > > 
> > > I cannot comment on the remainder of the patch, but the PATH_MAX issue
> > > is a pretty common one for Hurd, and assuming PATH_MAX is a compile-time
> > > constant is a bad idea anyway, since it's not allowed by POSIX.
> > 
> > Indeed, for any system with an extensible VFS it makes a lot more sense
> > to implement only pathconf() than to specify a constant value that
> > covers all possible filesystems.
> 
> Except there is no reasonable value pathconf() can return as well.  It can
> either say the truth which is typically (size_t)(-1), or return some made up
> value.
[...]

Yeah, you're right.  It's NAME_MAX that can generally be specified
per-volume but not globally.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Computers are not intelligent.	They only think they are.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: