From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [37.24.231.21])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 802C53893661
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 802C53893661
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deneb.enyo.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fw@deneb.enyo.de
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de)
 by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 id 1jRy45-00075m-1v; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:08:21 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
 id 1jRy44-0000KT-SW; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:08:20 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Cc: Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] linux: Simplify opendir buffer allocation
References: <20200417132209.22065-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <20200417132209.22065-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <875zdtuo8g.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <ca41c377-b34c-d923-4be2-9a57f91d562d@linaro.org>
 <87zhb1b3bp.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <a23c6130-77b4-3c28-d56c-89cbb0dc0e4d@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:08:20 +0200
In-Reply-To: <a23c6130-77b4-3c28-d56c-89cbb0dc0e4d@linaro.org> (Adhemerval
 Zanella's message of "Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:08:49 -0300")
Message-ID: <87lfml9gl7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:08:24 -0000

* Adhemerval Zanella:

> On 24/04/2020 07:11, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha:
>> 
>>>> This looks okay to me.  I wonder if we should just use 32 KiB
>>>> uncodintionally, though?
>>>
>>> Do you mean instead of '4 * BUFSIZ'?
>> 
>> Yes.  I assumed BUFSIZ was 8192.
>> 
>
> Alright, I can make this change. Any opinion whether we should keep
> 32 KiB or increase/decrease it?

Sorry, I think it should be a separate change.  Lowering the buffer
size will unfortunately expose application bugs when applications
modify the directory while iterating through it using readdir.  (musl
sees more such bugs due to its smaller buffer size.)