Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:24:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:24:43 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:56591 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:24:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3A9EBDF4.57C769AF@transmeta.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 13:24:04 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Viro CC: Pavel Machek , Bill Crawford , Linux Kernel , Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Hashing and directories In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro wrote: > > I _really_ don't want to trust the ability of shell to deal with long > command lines. I also don't like the failure modes with history expansion > causing OOM, etc. > > AFAICS right now we hit the kernel limit first, but I really doubt that > raising said limit is a good idea. > Arbitrary limits are generally bad. Yes, using a very long command line is usually a bad idea, but there are cases for which it is the only reasonable way to do something. Categorically blocking them is not a good idea either. > xargs is there for purpose... Well, yes; using xargs is a good idea, not the least because it enables some parallelism that wouldn't otherwise be there. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/