[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Increased upper limit on lists of pool names



On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Osier Yang <jyang redhat com> wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 09:42 AM, Jesse J. Cook wrote:
>>
>> 256 (8 bits) is insufficient for large scale deployments. 65536 (16 bits)
>> is a
>> more appropriate limit and should be sufficient. You are more likely to
>> run
>> into other system limitations first, such as the 31998 inode link limit on
>> ext3.
>> ---
>>  src/remote/remote_protocol.x |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
>> index 59774b2..58f0871 100644
>> --- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
>> +++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ const REMOTE_INTERFACE_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;
>>  const REMOTE_DEFINED_INTERFACE_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;
>>
>>  /* Upper limit on lists of storage pool names. */
>> -const REMOTE_STORAGE_POOL_NAME_LIST_MAX = 256;
>> +const REMOTE_STORAGE_POOL_NAME_LIST_MAX = 65536;
>
>
> Seems we have much problem of the array length for the
> RPC calls. A similiar problem with VOL_NAME_LIST_MAX:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=802357
>
> Osier

I will need this change as well.  I can patch and test.

-- Jesse


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]