On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:47:03PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/26/2013 05:59 AM, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> From: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> We have seen an issue on s390x platform where domain XMLs larger than 1MB
> were used. The define command was finished successfully. The dumpxml command
> was not successful (i.e. could not encode message payload).
>
> Enlarged message related sizes (e.g. maximum string size, message size, etc.)
> to handle larger system configurations used on s390x platform.
>
> To improve handling of the RPC message size the allocation during encode process
> is changed to a dynamic one (i.e. starting with 64kB initial size and increasing
> that size in steps up to 16MB if the payload data is larger).
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> src/libvirt.c | 4 ++++
> src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 6 +++---
> src/rpc/virnetmessage.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> src/rpc/virnetmessage.h | 3 ++-
> src/rpc/virnetprotocol.x | 16 +++++++++++----
> tests/virnetmessagetest.c | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
I think this patch is safe for 1.0.5, but want to give anyone else
another day to raise any objections before I apply it.
I'm not sure I agree. The RPC code is a pretty critical part of our
code and I think there's non-negligable risk in this change. So I'm
inclined to say we should wait to 1.0.6
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|