[PATCH 2/3] os: Don't limit MaxClients to MAXCLIENTS
keithp at keithp.com
Sat Jan 23 23:54:48 PST 2010
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:19:48 -0500, Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> wrote:
> ... which is sort of a funny thing to say. MaxClients was actually the
> maximum file descriptor number to pass to select(); MAXCLIENTS is the
> client count limit. Typical servers have quite a few file descriptors
> open below MAXCLIENTS that are not clients (input devices, mostly),
> which means you end up losing client slots.
> Rename MaxClients to reflect its true nature, and don't clamp it to
Yeah, good stuff.
> -int MaxClients = 0;
> +int MaxClientFd = 0;
Didn't we chat and agree to use something more obviously related to the
select call here? Like MaxActiveFd or MaxSelectFd? This isn't
MaxClientFd as it's possible (if unlikely) that the max fd isn't a
I'd also take MaxSelect as it relates to the MAXSELECT define.
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100124/8dd48d5b/attachment.pgp
More information about the xorg-devel