On Thu, 8 May 2025 13:38:11 +0530 Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> something like: > >> > >> char comm_ext[TASK_COMM_EXT_LEN]; > >> or > >> char comm_64[TASK_COMM_64_LEN] > > I prefer "comm_ext" as I don't think we want to hard code the actual size. > > Who knows, in the future we may extend it again! > > > > Ok, let me use 'comm_64' instead in v4. I think you missed what I said. I prefer the comm_ext over comm_64 because I don't think it's a good idea to hardcode the extended size in the name. That will make it very difficult in the future if we want to make it even larger. -- Steve
