On 04/27/2012 07:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statically.
> This is not such pain when RPC limits are small. However, if we want
> ever to increase those limits, we need to allocate buffer dynamically,
> based on RPC message len (= the first
On 03.05.2012 10:01, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:52:27PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 04/27/2012 07:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statically.
>>> This is not such pain when RPC limits are small. However, if we wa
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:48:10PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 10:01, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:52:27PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> On 04/27/2012 07:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>> Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statical
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:52:27PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 07:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statically.
> > This is not such pain when RPC limits are small. However, if we want
> > ever to increase those limits, we need to a
On 04/27/2012 07:22 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statically.
> This is not such pain when RPC limits are small. However, if we want
> ever to increase those limits, we need to allocate buffer dynamically,
> based on RPC message len (= the first
Currently, we are allocating buffer for RPC messages statically.
This is not such pain when RPC limits are small. However, if we want
ever to increase those limits, we need to allocate buffer dynamically,
based on RPC message len (= the first 4 bytes). Therefore we will
decrease our mem usage in mo
