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

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