l4-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: On PATH_MAX


From: ness
Subject: Re: On PATH_MAX
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:38:20 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051031)

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 19:06 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:42:31PM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:

It can be done, but the file system in question is unable to make any
reasonable specification of latency, and we are now done with any
consideration of even soft real time for this file system.

IMO giving no reasonable specification of latency in a case where the process
supplies a real long filename is not a problem.  If the process cannot handle
it, it can limit the size itself.


No no. The file system can no longer make any specification of latency
for *any* file, because the act of locating *other* files may require a
name comparison on an arbitrarily long name along the way.

shap

Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by the caller, too?
--
-ness-




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]