From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RC6io-00028o-Qv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:28:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RC6in-0002Qv-CE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:28:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43311) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RC6in-0002Qr-3Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:28:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:27:56 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20111007092755.GE31228@redhat.com> References: <1317292461-12291-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <87sjnfqu0y.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com> <20110929152216.GU30524@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110929152216.GU30524@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Raise 9pfs mount_tag limit from 32 to 255 bytes Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: Harsh Bora , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 04:22:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:23:49PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:34:21 +0100, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: > > > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" > > > > > > The Linux guest kernel does not appear to have a problem handling > > > a mount_tag larger than 32 bytes. Increase the limit to 255 bytes, > > > though perhaps it can be made larger still, or not limited at all ? > > > > > > Tested with a 3.0.4 kernel and a mount_tag 255 bytes in length. > > > > > > * hw/9pfs/virtio-9p.h: Change MAX_TAG_LEN to 255 > > > > > > mount_tag is passed via pci config space, do we want to have 255 bytes > > out of that for device identification. > > How big is the config space available for each 9pfs device and what > other info does it need to keep there ? Does anyone have an clear answer for this ? I've done some tests with ever larger mount tags, and managed to increase the MAX_TAG_LEN value to 1023 before I started getting guest failures. So if the config space is really 1023 bytes in size, it doesn't seem too unrealistic to allow 255 bytes of it for the mount_tag, or at the very least increase it from 32 to 128 ? 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 :|