| Summary: | remove posix NAME_MAX | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] GlusterFS | Reporter: | Vikas Gorur <vikas> |
| Component: | posix | Assignee: | Vikas Gorur <vikas> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | mainline | CC: | gluster-bugs, gowda, rabhat |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | RTNR | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
for now we will continue using NAME_MAX. moving to statvfs() based dynamic namemax will require lot of changes to code-base at very less advantage gained. -- Gowda |
Migrated from rt #338. History: Tue Sep 16 08:02:41 2008 avati - Ticket created Subject: remove posix NAME_MAX statvfs call provides a member f_namemax which is the max filename length of the filesystem. posix should findout the namemax in a statvfs() call in init and use that instead of NAME_MAX macro. # Tue Sep 16 10:12:18 2008 ab - Correspondence GNU standard is to not have any limit at all. It should be dynamically allocated. If possible, we should use GNU standard. On Tue Sep 16 08:02:41 2008, avati wrote: > statvfs call provides a member f_namemax which is the max filename > length of the filesystem. posix should findout the namemax in a > statvfs() call in init and use that instead of NAME_MAX macro. # Mon Mar 23 16:20:09 2009 gowda - Correspondence What is the final conclusion on this? Are we going to have limits or not?