On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:48:43 +0800
Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Cc: Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
> index 37a6f44..f280e95 100644
> --- a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
> +++ b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
> #include "hw/virtio/virtio-serial.h"
> #include "hw/virtio/virtio-access.h"
>
> +#define VIRTIO_SERIAL_BUS_QUEUE_MAX 64
> +
> struct VirtIOSerialDevices {
> QLIST_HEAD(, VirtIOSerial) devices;
> } vserdevices;
> @@ -942,7 +944,7 @@ static void virtio_serial_device_realize(DeviceState
> *dev, Error **errp)
> }
>
> /* Each port takes 2 queues, and one pair is for the control queue */
> - max_supported_ports = VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_MAX / 2 - 1;
> + max_supported_ports = VIRTIO_SERIAL_BUS_QUEUE_MAX / 2 - 1;
Shouldn't this be determined via the VirtIODevice instead? Or be the
maximum of those two values?
>
> if (vser->serial.max_virtserial_ports > max_supported_ports) {
> error_setg(errp, "maximum ports supported: %u", max_supported_ports);
