Article View: mod.std.unix
Article #60Re: OPEN_MAX and other constants - are they desireable?
From: Moderator, John Quarterman
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1985 09:41
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1985 09:41
19 lines
1497 bytes
1497 bytes
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 16:26:26 PST From: mordor!lll-crg!sun!guy (Guy Harris) > [ Seems to me only those critical binaries (/etc/init?) > that wanted a huge OPEN_MAX would need to be rebuilt. -Gwyn ] Nope. What about programs like shells which want to close every single open file descriptor? If OPEN_MAX were a compile-time constant, these programs would have to be recompiled if you just bought Keg-O-Data's new DBMS which requires 100 open file descriptors and reconfigured your kernel to up the max-file-descriptors-per-process limit. > I suggest deleting all of the constants, and instead specifying > a library routine... Yes, and *please* call the one for OPEN_MAX "getdtablesize", so 4.2 programs won't have to change. Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 13
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<185@bty.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!whuxcc!infopro!bty!std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman)References:
<3430@ut-sally.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bty.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!whuxcc!infopro!bty!std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: Re: OPEN_MAX and other constants - are they desireable? Message-ID: <185@bty.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 04:41:31 EST Article-I.D.: bty.185 Posted: Thu Nov 14 04:41:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 01:10:41 EST References: <3430@ut-sally.UUCP> Sender: root@bty.UUCP Organization: BTY, Inc., Rockaway, NJ Lines: 19 Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP