Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:48:23 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> Subject: Re: struct dirent question Message-ID: <44E36877.30707@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <p06230909c10914f68909@[128.113.24.47]> References: <44E29055.3080205@centtech.com> <20060816054925.GA11651@droopy.unibe.ch> <44E3484D.8090905@centtech.com> <p06230909c10914f68909@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/16/06 13:45, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 11:31 AM -0500 8/16/06, Eric Anderson wrote: >> My point was, that either path you take (if BSD_VISIBLE is >> defined or not), you end up with d_name having a size of >> 255 + 1, so what's the point the having it at all? > > To make it clear that d_name is tied to the exact value > of MAXNAMLEN (just in case that value ever changes), and > it does not just happen to be 255+1 bytes for some reason > that is completely unrelated to MAXNAMLEN. > > So if some programmer is working with the d_name variable, > and *if* they actually look at this include file, then > they'll immediately realize that any checks that they make > should use MAXNAMLEN, and not hard-code in the 255 value. > > That's my 2-cents worth, at least... > Then shouldn't both be set to MAXNAMLEN? Of course, it isn't a big deal, I'm just curious what I'm missing in the reasoning for doing such a thing. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44E36877.30707>