Re: sem_open(2) and ENAMETOOLONG

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 03:34:53PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > > That wasn't the question -- the question is what the semantics of
 > > sem_open() names are supposed to be.
 > 
 > They don't really have any. They are an independent namespace and the
 > ENAMETOOLONG error was actually added retrospective. It is not even
 > clear why any of the VFS based limits are relevant...

Well, there's got to be *some* limit. (Unless I guess you adopt the
Hurd's notions about letting a user process consume the entire kernel
heap in one go...)

Less than 32 or preferably 64 seems unreasonably small to me for just
about anything; this isn't 1985 any more :-/

There doesn't appear to be any downside, other than memory use, to
raising the limit.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost