>On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 01:38:59PM +0200, Frank van der Linden wrote:
>>On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 08:17:30PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>> 
>> 104 bytes is a long path name, and probably never will be exceeded in
>> normal or abnormal circumstances.
>
>Adding the pathname is a logical idea, but I don't see why you
>limit the pathname length. 1k per swap device isn't really that much..
>What's the max. number of swapdevices that you'll ever use? Most
>configurations will not exceed 1 or 2. Losing 1 or 2 k isn't
>really a big deal.

on the other hand...think in terms of actual pathnames.  the 104 bytes
will store a really long pathname.  as an example from solaris
(blech!), i found a machine that's swapping to

/devices/iommu@0,10000000/sbus@0,10001000/espdma@5,8400000/esp@5,8800000/sd@3,0:b

although they actually call it "/dev/dsk/c0t3d0s1".  that's 81 bytes.
plus one for the null.  a 1024 byte pathname (imho, quite excessive)
would look like a block of text (assuming you're using a "normal"
80x24 window/screen) that would half fill your screen.  doesn't
exactly strike me as useful.  104 should be quite sufficient.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
warfare@graffiti.com      * "information is power -- share the wealth."