Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0434196F3 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQqmrF7rWi3B; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29F5431FC1; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 855A4568DE4; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:43:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Worth To: Jesse Rosenthal , Xavier Maillard , Mark Anderson , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [notmuch] Bulk message tagging In-Reply-To: <87hbnbwrdq.fsf@jhu.edu> References: <87sk7b30tg.fsf@jhu.edu> <3wdmxxg4axm.fsf@testarossa.amd.com> <87fx2xfs4q.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87tyrcwkh5.fsf@jhu.edu> <874ojcf9tb.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87hbnbwrdq.fsf@jhu.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:43:19 -0700 Message-ID: <87ochi2ig8.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:43:20 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:47:45 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal wr= ote: > I've never run into this error. I usually run into this with things like "rm * */*" or so. > Is there a specific length that triggers > it? If so, we could chunk the tagging command. Or does the max length > depend on the machine and system? It is system dependent. Here are a couple of things I found: From=20"man errno": E2BIG Argument list too long (POSIX.1) and from "man sysconf": ARG_MAX - _SC_ARG_MAX The maximum length of the arguments to the exec(3) family= of functions. Must not be less than _POSIX_ARG_MAX (4096). So one could query with sysconf and break things up into multiple commands as needed. In fact, until we have some sort of daemon that we can feed arbitrarily-long lists to, that's what we should do. =2DCarl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLydcX6JDdNq8qSWgRAt/lAJ92iyRK+3ONuNNQLUzOHgsRAfzmKgCcCsnr /usnSh8Guhl25gJ9SxWFwzs= =gHMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--