Re: [Qemu-devel] IDs in QOM

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:26:28PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 02.10.2014 um 15:21 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 02:33:47PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > This discussion seems orthogonal to your patch.  But I'm not applying it
> > yet to give more time for discussion/review of the patch.
> > 
> >> Is mangling array-ness into the name really a good idea?  Isn't this
> >> type matter, not name matter?
> > 
> > I agree.  It's nasty to hack the array selector into the name and will
> > probably cause us pain down the line.
> > 
> >> Backtracking a bit...  Unlike QMP object-add, -object ) and HMP
> >> object-add use QemuOpts.  See object_create(), commit 68d98d3 "vl: add
> >> -object option to create QOM objects from the command line", and
> >> hmp_object_add(), commit cff8b2c "monitor: add object-add (QMP) and
> >> object_add (HMP) command".  Parameter 'id' is the QemuOpts ID, thus
> >> bound by its well-formedness rule.
> >>
> >> Therefore, -object and HMP object-add only support a subset of the
> >> possible names.
> >>
> >> In particular, they do not permit "automatic arrayification".
> >>
> >> Should QOM names be (well-formed!) IDs?
> > 
> > Yes, I think that is sane.
> > 
> > Are there any invalid IDs used as QOM names today?
> > 
> > Hopefully the answer is no and we can lock everything down using
> > id_wellformed().
> 
> On IRC I was arguing against that, preferring some more specific
> object_property_name_wellformed() or so. This could be called from
> object_property_add(), with invalid names returning an Error *.
> 
> Only thing to check for would be '/'?

Why risk the inability to specify QOM names via QemuOpts?

What is the benefit of allowing two different sets of valid names?

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]