From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37025) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUirZ-0004Mk-Hn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:08:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUirV-00073o-CU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:08:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUirV-00072w-6l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:08:05 -0400 From: John Snow References: <29C62C49-06A5-4F99-8062-7269A28C29A3@gmail.com> <8737z7o85i.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <441C227A-2CF0-43AE-AC7F-B066708CEABD@gmail.com> <87fv36j9j6.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Message-ID: <55DE38C2.3020109@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:08:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Programmingkid , Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Jeff Cody , qemu-devel qemu-devel , Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid wrote: >>> That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this problem. I >>> suppose giving them some time to respond would be reasonable. I'm thinking if >>> no consensus has been reached in one weeks time (starting today), we turn to >>> Peter Maydell for the answer. Hopefully he will just pick which of the patches he >>> likes the best. Judging by how long this problem has been ongoing, someone >>> pick the answer is probably the best we can expect. >> >> This is the kind of thing I strongly prefer to leave to the >> relevant subsystem maintainer(s). My opinion is not worth >> a great deal since I don't have a strong familiarity with >> this bit of QEMU. > > It looks unreasonable to assume any consensus can be reached over this issue. > The easy thing to do is to just let each maintainer deal with this problem > his own way. > What feedback was there that seemed insurmountable? Last I talked to Jeff Cody he said there was no "overwhelming pushback" against his patches, just a list of concerns. This doesn't sound like a dead end so much as it sounds like we haven't planned the feature enough yet. > Markus: > I know you really wanted a single ID generating system, but it just isn't going > to happen. I will make a patch that would only effect USB devices. All other > devices would be untouched. At least the device_del problem will be solved. > I think this is being unnecessarily hasty. We should make sure that an auto-generated ID system does not create problems for other areas of code before we rush ahead with one to solve a single problem. Let's give the universal approach some more time before we jump to the conclusion that it's impossible. --js