Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-42,: Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?

# Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?

Andreas Jaeger (aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de)
19 Oct 1998 20:25:01 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: bug introduced in 2.0.34"
- Previous message: Chris Evans: "Re: 2.2 missing features"
- In reply to: H.J. Lu: "OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"

>>>>> H J Lu writes:

HJ Lu> Hi,
HJ Lu> Is OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX dynamic in Linux 2.1.125? At least, it seems
HJ Lu> > 256. If it is true, is there a system call libc can use to get it
HJ Lu> or do we have to use the /proc interface?

HJ Lu> Ulrich, we need to address it in glibc 2. Also it may have impact
HJ Lu> on __fd_set. It should be large enough to cover most if not all
HJ Lu> cases. I am thinking 8192 or even larger. We can do the conversion
HJ Lu> to the kernel fd size at the run-time.

That's why I've transformed nearly all code [1] to use poll instead of
select for glibc 2.1. The emulation of poll via syscall allocates
fd_set now dynamically so that it's not necessary to know FD_SETSIZE.
For details of the patches have a look at my ChangeLog entries from
June/July 1998 in glibc-2.0.98/ChangeLog.8.

I don't agree that we need to address this in glibc 2.0.7 - we should
release the current version instead and concentrate on glibc 2.1.

Andreas

Footnotes:
[1] The sunrpc code hasn't been completed so far.

    --
     Andreas Jaeger   aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de    jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
      for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de

    -
    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: Alan Cox: "Re: bug introduced in 2.0.34"
- Previous message: Chris Evans: "Re: 2.2 missing features"
- In reply to: H.J. Lu: "OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"
- Next in thread: Ulrich Drepper: "Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"