Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:21:09 -0400 From: "John W. De Boskey" <jwd@bsdwins.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Current List <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Correctness of UIO_MAXIOV definition? Message-ID: <20010529212109.A77364@bsdwins.com> In-Reply-To: <200105291701.NAA96866@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:01:24PM -0400 References: <20010526205509.A14824@FreeBSD.org> <200105291701.NAA96866@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Garrett Wollman's Original Message -----
> <<On Sat, 26 May 2001 20:55:09 -0700, John <jwd@FreeBSD.ORG> said:
>
> > The second question I have is more standards based.
> > Should we consider changing UIO_MAXIOV to IOV_MAX or
> > _XOPEN_IOV_MAX and deprecating the 1st? I am unclear
> > on what the standard is for this.
>
> UIO_MAXIOV is what the kernel is willing to do. IOV_MAX being
> standardized is what should be used by user code.
>
> -GAWollman
Hi,
That seems reasonable, but I can only find UIO_MAXIOV referenced
in 5 files and defined in 1. Thus, I was thinking about simply
updating those references, but still leaving UIO_MAXIOV defined,
though depricated.
If the above is simply not the direction we want to go, then
I beleive that UIO_MAXIOV should atleast be defined in terms
of IOV_MAX in sys/uio.h:
#include <limits.h> # bring in IOV_MAX
#ifdef _KERNEL
#define UIO_MAXIOV IOV_MAX
#endif
Question: does anyone know the appropriate #define to use
for IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, or should _SC_IOV_MAX
simply be put behind the non-expansion controlled
comment (in /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/sysconf.c)
switch (name) {
/* 1003.1 */
Comments?
Thanks,
-John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010529212109.A77364>