From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54062) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUxlU-0001a6-1M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:02:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUxlO-0007uP-Db for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:02:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZUxlO-0007uK-6b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:02:46 -0400 References: <441C227A-2CF0-43AE-AC7F-B066708CEABD@gmail.com> <87fv36j9j6.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20150826172550.GJ11016@localhost.localdomain> <20150826180815.GK11016@localhost.localdomain> <20150826220151.GA2669@localhost.localdomain> <2CB0CE30-A638-4933-A1D6-F65CA4910E61@gmail.com> <20150827123234.GB2669@localhost.localdomain> <56530C98-D6B3-417E-BB58-E29412283BF1@gmail.com> <20150827134943.GS24486@redhat.com> <37557843-A1BA-4822-9933-B0B8AD588C90@gmail.com> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: <55DF1884.2030608@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:02:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37557843-A1BA-4822-9933-B0B8AD588C90@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kcCrI4r5bkUCltIN6RIDErh0BVBfAJsWv" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Programmingkid , "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Kevin Wolf , Jeff Cody , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel qemu-devel , Paolo Bonzini , jsnow@redhat.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --kcCrI4r5bkUCltIN6RIDErh0BVBfAJsWv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programmingkid wrote: >> If we did have auto-generated names, we would need to come up with a >> scheme that is not going to clash with any existing naming that users >> of QEMU may already be doing, otherwise we risk causing a regression. >> Something as simple as what you suggest has non-trivial chance of >> clashing. >=20 > Actually there is a way to prevent clashing. When QEMU auto-generates a= > name, it could scan all the ID's to see if there is a clash. If the ID = is already > taken, just increment the ID until it is detected to be unique. The pre= vious > threads on this subject has patches that did just that. This means that= a > ID scheme that is just a single number would work without clashes.=20 No, because you cannot predict what FUTURE names the user will request. The name generated by qemu must be IMPOSSIBLE to request manually, and not just one that happens not to clash at the current moment. --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --kcCrI4r5bkUCltIN6RIDErh0BVBfAJsWv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV3xiEAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nqdx8H/2t00XF/PXe/LuObvFpFDNCE UMwTezlo2DYFQndSQmm0nrQLHGpIyziFv/qipB/tCHTObYsjv10H7mtamntL2tz4 fveOQLZJnkmoBbVXF56oTZ2lPWEy0M8yMUqnfhsWcqBu9x5MyDRPLC2o46u5jh+u U3ScO8xAAGrMUzTTUz8DCN9m98iDt7U2t22nNb4z5v15ehMLsU9yMpDH8RHxQWbm TNDL7LoO1cAJpkK55F/HGu9AXxyVrzjoAn4l6E83DkzCv888ahOcdsT67B2XyoS2 INY6umZCSEkoqQmpQWlotyBdYTdo4MwKetu1x8uKKFoKmBnwnz3gHkimUJX54qE= =EPGp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kcCrI4r5bkUCltIN6RIDErh0BVBfAJsWv--