From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Sep 2 10:20:44 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA00173 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 10:20:44 -0700 Received: from mpp.minn.net (mpp.Minn.Net [204.157.201.242]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA00167 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 10:20:42 -0700 Received: (from mpp@localhost) by mpp.minn.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA25544; Sat, 2 Sep 1995 12:20:18 -0500 From: Mike Pritchard Message-Id: <199509021720.MAA25544@mpp.minn.net> Subject: Re: 16-bit pids? (was Re: 16, 32, and 64bit types?) To: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw (Brian Tao) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 12:20:17 -0500 (CDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Brian Tao" at Sep 2, 95 11:28:34 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7a] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 727 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Brian Tao wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, J Wunsch wrote: > > > > After a PID rollover, the non-uniqueness of the PID namespace can fool > > this mechanism. > > Ah ha, I see now, *ding*. :) Yeah, it does seem a little > short-sighted, now that you mention it. ;-) pid_t is a long, but > PID_MAX is 30000? Are those other 17 bits used for anything at all? Which is why I suggested we raise it to 90000. That gives us 3 times as many pids, and is still the same number is digits, so no displays will be affected (e.g. ps). I suspect that the 30000 limit is left over from times gone by when pid_t was not a long. -- Mike Pritchard mpp@mpp.minn.net "Go that way. Really fast. If something gets in your way, turn"