From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43325) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wz3Z1-0002uq-PE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:41:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wz3Ys-0000eR-PE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:41:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]:42658) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wz3Ys-0000eB-Ih for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:41:26 -0400 Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x13so6257702wgg.33 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:41:10 +0800 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20140623124110.GA26269@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <526da734a5f3cffd2eb56accafdb4add38c75270.1403041699.git.jcody@redhat.com> <20140619085502.GR21236@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20140619123019.GA6096@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140619123019.GA6096@localhost.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 for 2.1 01/10] block: Auto-generate node_names for each BDS entry List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jeff Cody Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, benoit.canet@irqsave.net, pkrempa@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:30:19AM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 04:55:02PM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote: > > It seems like neither type of user will get much mileage out of this > > feature. Is it really necessary or did I miss a use case? > > >=20 > Strictly speaking, it isn't required. But it makes sense for QEMU to > assign node-names to any unassigned node-names, because it does make > life easier for both humans and management software, and QEMU is the > only one that can always ensure that every BDS has a node-name. >=20 > It is also nice for QEMU; we can now in future versions assume that > every BDS will always have a node-name, regardless if it has been > assigned by the user or not. >=20 > And the usage of the node-names is strictly optional by the human or > management software user; neither is required to use the generated > node-names, and are feel to specify their own node-name. A user > specified node-name will prevent an auto-generated one from being > assigned for that specific BDS. Thanks for the explanation. I understand how auto-generated node-names will be used a bit better now. I think Eric and your arguments make sense. Stefan --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTqCBmAAoJEJykq7OBq3PI2UgIAKC/Q6g/WdwjBegMC0gKahql zEaebzukw5M3xSNPjNNH9cTapCpV4xNylX/YLeb6EjD7SaJEPT3b0NFIMqKXtulF gHMVP4POcYSib6lpYCKZ8TbrTt9NmuImsDIXsln2kApORkWwQLi1+DzENe6Wi1FV 0os03LpFCkbbKnngoh2lgBzb8WZ057vE5wN61LAu9j2Ih7eVla0QmXfxnbI2bPnu 5wyhX7xLqjqsrCRfjHnN6jVlMqY5/h28FBMht9MY1KSyjndjCTvf96wnfCBMWq7B 8sRNrwDoHP3PeQccr8RZiua+aiIc17XH5m9pFnzaLt52K+uJEJiovxdwnOcqzuE= =2F+E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cNdxnHkX5QqsyA0e--