Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 4/6] Read extra configuration files from

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:44:19 -0600 (CST), Matt Roberds wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:23:12 -0600 (CST), Matt Roberds wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >>> +		char path[16 + NAME_MAX];
> >>
> >> This says that the maximum length of the path to the config files is
> >> 16 characters?  Seems kind of short.
> >
> > Not really. There is no strong delimiter between the directory name
> > and the configuration file name, what is limited is the total length.
> 
> Ah, right.  As long as NAME_MAX is huge this might not be a big deal.
> 
> > Even including the full board manufacturer and model names in the
> > configuration file name is hardly going to exceed 50 characters.
> 
> A well-known businessman once said something about 640 KB.  :)
> 
> > I don't know the exact semantics of PATH_MAX but I suspect it includes
> > all the directory names _and_ the file name, so adding MAX_NAME to it
> > doesn't make sense.
> 
> The GNU libc docs at
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/libc/Limits-for-Files.html#Limits-for-Files
> spell it out, citing POSIX.  Note that it can be different for different

OK, thanks for the pointer.

> filesystems; you can ask at runtime if you really want to know:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/libc/Pathconf.html#Pathconf
> On the other hand, the man page for pathconf on my system says "Some
> returned values may be huge; they are not suitable for allocating
> memory."

I'd rather keep the code simple, and only change it if someone
expresses an actual need for that.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors