From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Sep 8 18:30:58 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7FC9E0300A for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-f193.google.com (mail-yw0-f193.google.com [209.85.161.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E73E65753; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-yw0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v72so1315072ywa.1; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 11:30:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=54NOogJH6PFO3xQAHrM4fxMoBfQ4rZFaGQj0PgJJnyA=; b=YOUufzlDHprmR6ZLBXn2f9YNUtkxUaHhOmxR9aGMSqNZ5Qce2E1r3jbO4oEwgp+fSr EmTI6jrzmPXFnD9D+bIeGBBwarWlIn27Cqs/P3+rPsd51I48NqplWr4/LX+rv0Zhax/D M0PqDSZUDYyrQ/7kd9mrNVfSOxn+zHLfQC8Jb46OUMX8Atbp7k+250XbgunFWfYzCqn/ ieRJtKaH+bMgfz4VqHRF6a1J3oHI8XCY5S3Du1eiyoxEX/MGi8/vAEzquGgoKihyEwLW uHCJv4M4otk/s1HHztCmJZy98EdVpD1wHmChA1PpnhRqy5D89rnC1P0JPxfp9lEnVIab 9BZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgvP+x52PSgr3iqhQ4NjYcoLC5LrvewL0V5ct865XV7glJwXU+U 63hDqAKE8ZQ8y5BTrBc= X-Received: by 10.13.210.6 with SMTP id u6mr3079825ywd.271.1504891938321; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com. [209.85.223.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p205sm834107ywc.44.2017.09.08.10.32.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id j141so7107270ioj.4; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCJM29CYr8MuuvXp3NrYR9jM1n6kFbJAUzzuWE42Eo+MXgyF5rLqM+URY1T5rcO+9bBnpDGpLGr6sR5HbD9L/0= X-Received: by 10.107.114.8 with SMTP id n8mr4281898ioc.174.1504891937467; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: cem@freebsd.org Received: by 10.2.81.131 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170908172125.GB1152@albert.catwhisker.org> References: <0154558d-b2ad-af97-3960-3e392678f709@freebsd.org> <20170908172125.GB1152@albert.catwhisker.org> From: Conrad Meyer Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:32:17 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: extending the maximum filename length To: David Wolfskill , Julian Elischer , freebsd-current , Rick Macklem Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:30:58 -0000 On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:21 AM, David Wolfskill wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 01:15:31AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >> Has anyone using freeBSD ever increased NAME_MAX (filename maximum >> length) and have any experience with it? >> >> We ($JOB) would recompile the entire system so intra-system >> compatibility would probably be ok, and we have our own filesystem >> which would support it. >> >> But I wonder if anyone has tried it and hit unexpected problems. >> .... > > Not *strictly* a "filename length" issue, but one thing I (think > I) recall encountering a while back was an (88-character?) upper > limit on the length of the full pathname of a mount point. > > So that could prove ... annoying (if I actually recall correctly, > and the situation has not changed since). Hi David, I think mountpoint name length is largely an orthogonal issue. Fortunately, the 88 character limit (MNAMELEN) was already addressed recently (bumped to 1024) with the ino64 project. Best, Conrad