From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 16 05:49:43 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E306816A4DE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:49:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from roth@droopy.unibe.ch)
Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch (mailhub.unibe.ch [130.92.9.70])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E0D43D46
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:49:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from roth@droopy.unibe.ch)
Received: from localhost (scanhub03.unibe.ch [130.92.5.63])
	by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0FE4B4F2;
	Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:32 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne
Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch ([130.92.9.70])
	by localhost (scanhub03.unibe.ch [130.92.5.63]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with LMTP id MTqD7KpSmAY4; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from asterix.unibe.ch (asterix.unibe.ch [130.92.64.4])
	by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id F254B4BB89;
	Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from droopy.unibe.ch (droopy [130.92.64.20])
	by asterix.unibe.ch (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k7G5nUdd012786; 
	Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:30 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from roth@localhost)
	by droopy.unibe.ch (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id k7G5nPvM011665;
	Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:25 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:49:25 +0200
From: Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch>
To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
Message-ID: <20060816054925.GA11651@droopy.unibe.ch>
References: <44E29055.3080205@centtech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44E29055.3080205@centtech.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-message-flag: Warning! Using Outlook is insecure and promotes virus
	distribution. Please use a different email client.
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: struct dirent question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:49:44 -0000

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 10:26:13PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Does the ifdef in the struct dirent (pasted in below) make any sense? 
> Seems like regardless of whether the __BSD_VISIBLE is defined or not, 
> the d_name length will always be 255 + 1.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> struct dirent {
>         __uint32_t d_fileno;            /* file number of entry */
>         __uint16_t d_reclen;            /* length of this record */
>         __uint8_t  d_type;              /* file type, see below */
>         __uint8_t  d_namlen;            /* length of string in d_name */
> #if __BSD_VISIBLE
> #define MAXNAMLEN       255
>         char    d_name[MAXNAMLEN + 1];  /* name must be no longer than 
> this */
> #else
>         char    d_name[255 + 1];        /* name must be no longer than 
> this */
> #endif
> };

The difference is whether MAXNAMLEN is defined or not, the value of d_name
is irrelevant. How far not defining MAXNAMLEN (in the case __BSD_VISIBLE=
false) makes sense, I cannot tell.

cheers, t.