Re: NGROUPS 2.6.2rc2

[Panu Matilainen]

On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 00:17, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Although I do believe that it would be better written as
> > > 
> > > 	#define MAXGROUPS (1000) /* Arbitrary, but we have to limit it somehere */
> > > 
> > > 	if ((unsigned) info->ngroups > MAXGROUPS)
> > > 		return -ETOOEFFINGLARGE;
> > > 
> > > as I absolutely _despise_ code that tries to be too generic. 
> > > 
> > > What is it with CS classes that have removed "common sense" from the 
> > > equation?
> > 
> > OK, there are two easy answers to this.  I can re-work it with a simple 32k
> > limit that needs to be recompiled to change, or I can add a sysctl to
> > control it (it appeared in an early version of this patch).
> 
> I guess static limit is okay for this...

Maybe static limit is enough but it's more than just a bit annoying when
you hit that <limit>+1 mark. Oh well, just upping the current limit *a
lot* would make life easier for some of us.

	- Panu -


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