Yes. That has always been true for other reasons too: the block size of
the filesystem has an upper limit determined by the page size too.
> > We need the limit anyway, to make our stack size limited.
>
> Indeed but would min(4096, PAGESIZE) be better ?
Note that even on x86 you _can_ create a path that is longer than
PATHNAME. And you can traverse it. You just cannot traverse it in one go
(and this also implies that getcwd() cannot handle it - even if we were to
return a longer path that wouldn't really be all that helpful because we
couldn't do a "cd `pwd`" kind of operation anyway).
I don't think we want to do the "min(4096)" thing - there is no real
compelling reason to limit ourselves when it isn't a problem in any
real-world usage (and the blocksize thing is something that the system
administrator has to decide at mkfs time: the default blocksize works for
everybody).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu