From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42693)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZWhOa-0004PK-4A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 04:58:25 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZWhOW-0004MO-Ch
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 04:58:24 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54855)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berrange@redhat.com>) id 1ZWhOW-0004Lx-76
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 04:58:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:58:14 +0100
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150901085814.GB6860@redhat.com>
References: <1440689864-32127-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com>
	<87vbbz8tgq.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<55E15616.9030508@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55E15616.9030508@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: allow object_del & device_del to
 accept QOM paths
Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 08:49:58AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28/08/2015 14:53, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > I believe this makes sense no matter what we do about device IDs (see
> > thread "Should we auto-generate IDs?").
> 
> I haven't read that huge thread yet, but I think it gives the user too
> much power.  There are internal objects that are not supposed to be
> freed, and freeing them would likely result in a SEGV or similar.

I'll double check, but I thought it raised a nice error if the object
did not implement the user-creatable interface.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|