On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Cornelia Huck
<cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
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?
Rethink about this. I think it's ok to use the transport limit through
VirtIODevice here. Then there's no need for virtio serial to handle
migration compatibility.
