Message-ID: <39991813.78DC851E@softhome.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:14:43 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: <limits.h> change for symlinks
References: <3997BA55 DOT 413E8CCD AT softhome DOT net> <2950-Mon14Aug2000192605+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39982526 DOT BD15241A AT softhome DOT net> <4331-Mon14Aug2000205622+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39983839 DOT E5692C3D AT softhome DOT net> <2427-Tue15Aug2000092627+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > I simply don't know who is right, but somehow I don't think Unix
> > > imposes limits of the number of symlinks to a file (which is what
> > > LINK_MAX and _POISX_LINK_MAX are about).
> >
> > This is not number of symlinks to file. This is a number of how many
> > symlinks you can encounter when processing a path.
> 
> My Posix references clearly say "maximum value of a file's link
> count".  This is what led me to believe that LINK_MAX and
> _POSIX_LINK_MAX are about hard links, not symlinks.

No, I didn't mean to say that LINK_MAX is "a number of how many
symlinks you can encounter when processing a path". I was just
referring to what kind of limit I need here.

Anyway it is solved now - LINK_MAX and _POSIX_LINK_MAX are left intact,
and __solve_symlinks() has been adjusted to have internal limit 
instead of referring to those macros.

Laurynas