Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

Laszlo Ersek [off-list ref] writes:

The problem is that I can't really automate the subject munging. The
concrete subjects in this case were:

quoted

OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal function for SEC phase
OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal functions for PEI phase
OvmfPkg/QemuFwCfgLib: Implement SEV internal function for Dxe phase

...
So, even in kernel land, if subjects up to 75 columns are permitted, but
FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX is 64, conflicts are possible, at least in theory,
aren't they? With the numbers stripped, of course.

Yup, configurable lengthening or unconditional lengthening to 75 or
so do not sound _too_ bad.

If I sounded like I was opposed to lengthening, that wasn't what I
meant.  It was more like "if you can meaningfully abbreviate, you
may help not just format-patch filenames but other use cases, and
you might even be able to get away without lengthening"; if there
is no meaningful way to abbreviate, raising the max length may be
the only workable solution.