Re: LINK_MAX

Der Herr Hofr.at (der.herr@hofr.at)
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:17:45 +0100 (MET)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Christoph Rohland: "Re: shm bug introduced with pagecache in 2.3.11"
Previous message: Jes Sorensen: "Re: linux interrupt handling problem"
In reply to: Adrian Cox: "Re: PATCH 2.3.26: kmalloc GFP_ZERO"
Next in thread: Gabor Lenart: "Re: LINK_MAX"

>
> 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)

-
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/

Next message: Christoph Rohland: "Re: shm bug introduced with pagecache in 2.3.11"
Previous message: Jes Sorensen: "Re: linux interrupt handling problem"
In reply to: Adrian Cox: "Re: PATCH 2.3.26: kmalloc GFP_ZERO"
Next in thread: Gabor Lenart: "Re: LINK_MAX"