From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLnhu-0002Ll-TS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:29:51 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLnhq-0002JA-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:29:50 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38670 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLnhq-0002J7-3T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:29:46 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:45199) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLnhp-00089s-Sk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:29:45 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLnhp-0002va-0K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:29:45 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/8] qdev/core: bus list Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:29:41 +0100 References: <1246353962-32308-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <4A4A6C48.3060101@codemonkey.ws> <873a9hw9ak.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <873a9hw9ak.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907010129.42401.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Markus Armbruster , Gerd Hoffmann > >>> The address of the BusState is also a locally unique > >>> identifier. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to expose to the > >>> user. > >> > >> Red herring. > > > > I don't think that's a very useful response. > > > > I think it's a perfectly valid suggestion that we should identify > > buses based on the their location in the tree to users verses a number > > generated based on some hashing algorithm. > > > > A tree location has meaning to a user. A random integer doesn't. > > Numbering nodes according to a well-defined tree traversal is not > random. We can discuss whether using such a number in an interface is a > good idea (nobody suggested to use it *instead* of tree paths). I don't believe the tree traversal order is well defined. While developing the qdev patches I went through two or three different traversal algorithms. It gets even hairier when you start considering hotplug. Paul