From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx0zX-0006sZ-0X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:03 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx0zT-0006rn-02 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 10:33:02 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43171 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx0zS-0006rj-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 10:32:58 -0400 Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.184]:55135) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jx0zS-0005EN-Fl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 10:32:58 -0400 Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n8so94733gve.36 for ; Fri, 16 May 2008 07:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <482D9B15.7050209@codemonkey.ws> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:32:53 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Use of PATH_MAX References: <18477.36259.30442.280531@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <200805161502.10631.paul@codesourcery.com> <18477.39006.84174.885932@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <18477.39195.224231.369929@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <18477.39195.224231.369929@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Paul Brook Ian Jackson wrote: > iwj writes ("Re: [Qemu-devel] Use of PATH_MAX"): > >> I agree that it would be better to get rid of the static buffers. But >> at the moment I'm just trying to stop a tide of PATH_MAX nonsense >> enveloping the Xen semi-fork. [...] >> > > Sorry, let me be clearer: in the Xen version of qemu, which I'm trying > to bring more into line with upstream, people are seeing PATH_MAX in > some places and changing fixed constants 1024 to PATH_MAX because they > think that PATH_MAX is the right thing to do. > > If I can get agreement on a new name to use in qemu proper then it > will be easy to change to use that everywhere. > > Of course if someone wants to do the work to make the buffers dynamic > then that is good but that's quite a bit of work and is likely to > introduce the occasional memory management bug, so I don't think that > changing 1024 and PATH_MAX to QEMU_PATH_MAX should wait for it. > I don't see any value in converting PATH_MAX to QEMU_PATH_MAX. Both are equally wrong. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Ian. > > >