On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:24:01PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 23:05 +0800, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 05:51:48PM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > > > Declare the maximum path size of an FDT node. > > > It is useful for manipulation methods that need to know a maximum value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Why do you need this. I've really tried to avoid adding arbitrary > > size limits on things. > > > > The stacked overlay patch needs it; has to 'read' in a path into a > buffer and manipulate it. Otherwise it I would have to add a new method > that walks the path and returns the size of it so that I can allocate > the exact amount. This seems excessive IMO compared to a hard max limit. > > It is similar to the way PATH_MAX works in *nix which makes things > somewhat familiar. This is not necessary. As noted elsewhere, I'm not really convinced of the need of the stacked overlay application patch at all. But even if we took that approach I can see fairly straightforward ways to eliminate the need for a PATH_MAX (removing the arbitrary limit with it). -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
