From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 19:15:38 2005 Return-Path: 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 8D3FF16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:15:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BD243D4C for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:15:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1OJFZiM026053; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:15:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20050223094647.D6CC01D9F4@turtle.stack.nl> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:15:35 -0500 To: marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) Subject: Re: ARG_MAX increase X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:15:38 -0000 At 2:11 PM -0500 2/23/05, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >At 10:46 AM +0100 2/23/05, Marco van de Voort wrote: >>I saw ARG_MAX was increased in 6.0. Recently I noticed that >>the lang/fpc-devel port currently hits the old limit in >>certain (though rare) cases), and this is annoying. >> >>(some testing revealed that half the increase of 6.0 >>to 131k params is also ok) >> >>Any chance ARG_MAX will be upped in -STABLE too? > >For this specific example, it would be better to fix the port. I should add to this that I have no objection to seeing it raised in 5.x-stable. I'm just saying that even if we do raise it right now, there are a lot of users who will not be helped if the value is only changed in 5.x-stable. I (personally) would rather not see it changed so close to 5.4-release, but it might make sense to increase it in -stable shortly after 5.4-release. I have no opinion on what value it should be changed to, though, if we do increase it. I do not work in that part of the system, so I don't know all the pros and cons that would be involved. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu