From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36129) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1EmY-0003d8-Ce for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:50:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1EmX-0005pG-Fs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:50:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6194) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R1EmX-0005p9-8t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:50:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 12:50:52 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20110907095051.GM15275@redhat.com> References: <4E5BE735.3090706@us.ibm.com> <4E5BFCF8.3060206@web.de> <4E5C0250.3000807@codemonkey.ws> <4E5E7DFE.8050809@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5E7DFE.8050809@siemens.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/6] qdev: Generate IDs for anonymous devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: qemu-devel , Markus Armbruster On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-08-29 23:19, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > On 08/29/2011 03:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 2011-08-29 21:23, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> On 08/26/2011 09:48 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> In order to address devices for that the user forgot or is even unable > >>>> (no_user) to provide an ID, assign an automatically generated one. Such > >>>> IDs have the format #, thus are outside the name space availing > >>>> to users. Don't use them for bus naming to avoid any other user-visible > >>>> change. > >>> > >>> I don't think this is a very nice approach. Why not eliminate anonymous > >>> devices entirely and use a parent derived name for devices that are not > >>> created by the user? > >> > >> This eliminates anonymous devices completely. So I guess you are asking > >> for a different naming scheme, something like.child# > >> e.g.? Well, we would end up with fairly long names when a complete > >> hierarchy is anonymous. What would be the benefit? > > > > No, I'm saying that whenever a device is created, it should be given a > > non-random name. IOW, the names of these devices should be stable. > > > >> I'm really just looking for some simple, temporary workaround without > >> touching the existing fragile naming scheme. What we really need is full > >> path addressing, but that without preserving all the legacy. > > > > Yeah, I understand, and I hesitated making any grander suggestions here, > > but I'm not sure how much work it would be to just remove any caller > > that passes NULL for ID and replace it with something more meaningful. I > > think that's a helpful clean up long term no matter what. > > That won't solve the problem of finding a unique device name. If we want > to derive it from stable device properties (bus addresses etc.), we > first of all have to define them for all types of devices. And that's > basically were the discussion exploded last year IIRC. > Why not use the OpenFirmware naming that we already have for some devices instead of inventing something new? -- Gleb.