Re: LINK_MAX

Bruce Harada (bruce@ask.ne.jp)
Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:52:15 +0900

>> Just a quick question - why is LINK_MAX in limits.h restricted to
>> 127? EXT2_LINK_MAX is 32000, so is there any reason for keeping
>> the value of LINK_MAX so low?
>>
>>
>I guess LINK_MAX in limits.h is more or less ignored anyway...
>
>----snip include/linux/minix_fs.h----
>
>/* Not the same as the bogus LINK_MAX in <linux/limits.h>. Oh well. */
>#define MINIX_LINK_MAX 250
>
>its also redefined in ext2_fs.h ufs_fs.h (I think in others too)

Yeah, I noticed that - a quick grep shows that there's a variety of
definitions in several header files, ranging from 126 for XENIX_LINK_MAX
and SYSV_LINK_MAX to 32000 for EXT2_LINK_MAX/UFS_LINK_MAX and 65530 for
MINIX2_LINK_MAX. The thing that gets me is that if LINK_MAX in limits.h
is supposed to be a minimum value, then why do we have 126 for Xenix and
SysV? Why not just set LINK_MAX to 32000 to match ext2 and be done with
it?

----
Bruce Harada
bruce@ask.ne.jp

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/