Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!std-unix 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: <3452@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 19:06:24 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3452 Posted: Mon Nov 11 19:06:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 07:18:01 EST References: <3430@ut-sally.UUCP> Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee Lines: 19 Approved: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP 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