Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Remove MAX_TAP_ID, take 3
2009/7/30 Mark McLoughlin <markmc(a)redhat.com>:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 02:58 +0200, Matthias Bolte wrote:
> 2009/7/29 Daniel Veillard <veillard(a)redhat.com>:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 08:05:37PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:52:30PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> >> > This is a resend of take 2 to fix formatting problems in the
> >> > patch. No other changes.
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can tell, there's no reason to format the device
> >> > string in brAddTap(). Delegate the job to TUNSETIFF, thereby
> >> > removing the loop and the MAX_TAP_ID artificial limit. This
> >> > patch allows me to get 421 guests running before hitting other
> >> > limits.
> >>
> >> haha ! that one worked :-)
> >>
> >> I will review and apply, thanks !
> >
> > Actually just looking at brAddTap() after patching makes it clear,
> > and based on Mark and Dan feedback great !
> > Applied and commited to git, thanks !
> >
> > Daniel
>
> This patch breaks -Werror, because GCC is unhappy with the initializer
> for ifreq.
>
> The follow change makes GCC happy again:
>
> diff --git a/src/bridge.c b/src/bridge.c
> index ec37192..6480a35 100644
> --- a/src/bridge.c
> +++ b/src/bridge.c
> @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ brAddTap(brControl *ctl,
> int *tapfd)
> {
> int fd, len;
> - struct ifreq ifr = {0};
> + struct ifreq ifr = {{{0}}, {{0, {0}}}};
AFAIR, this works?
struct ifreq ifr = {0,};
Cheers,
Mark.
No, it doesn't, I tested it. The problem is the internal structure of
ifreq. GCC complains until the initializer matches this structure. Or
use memset like all other bridge functions do:
struct ifreq ifr;
memset(&ifr, 0, sizeof(struct ifreq));
Matthias