On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 12:52 +1100, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, David P. Quigley wrote: > > > +#define NFS4_MAXLABELLEN 255 > > I remember raising this before, but I think we need to try and find a > better way to implement this than always allocating labels of a fixed and > possibly too-small size. > > What about perhaps starting with a statically allocated array of say 64 > bytes (I can't see any labels on my system larger than that), and then > falling back to a a dynamic allocation of up to 32k if it turns out to be > too small ? i.e. large labels are a slow path and there is no practical > limit on label size. > > > - James I'm not convinced that it is worth all of that extra logic just to save some space on a transient data structure. 255 characters seems to be overkill to begin with considering you don't often get a label like the one below which is only 90 characters. thisismyuser_u:withseveralroles_r:andanoverlylongtype_t:s0-s12:c0,c1,c2,c3,c4,c5,c6,c7,c8 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
