From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48523)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1ZbWqn-0002sX-Nb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:43:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1ZbWqi-00018n-PI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:43:29 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51241)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1ZbWqi-00018f-Kb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:43:24 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1441974836-17476-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com>
	<87lhc9m1ys.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<3FBFD05D-A0A4-4A2C-A235-39923ECA7FAE@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:43:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3FBFD05D-A0A4-4A2C-A235-39923ECA7FAE@gmail.com>
	(Programmingkid's message of "Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:17:20 -0400")
Message-ID: <87io7dgdee.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] monitor: allow device_del to accept QOM
	paths
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>

Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sep 14, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
>> If neither Andreas nor Paolo objects, I'd be willing to take this
>> through my tree.
>
> If you do accept this patch, would you still be willing to
> accept an auto-generated ID patch still?

I'm on record saying

    I believe [this patch] makes sense no matter what we do about device
    IDs (see thread "Should we auto-generate IDs?").

This patch weakens *one* reason for auto-generated IDs: device_del
without ID is impossible before, and merely a bit inconvenient after.  I
haven't been able to keep up with the discussion on auto-generated IDs,
so I can't currently judge how strong the other reasons are.