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

[Osier Yang]

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