From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8jJG-0003GK-Fr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8jJB-0000Ik-Hr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:26 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:36140 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f8jJB-0000IQ-Ck for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:21 -0400 References: <20180329032149.44685-1-aik@ozlabs.ru> <20180416152040.7b88b902@redhat.com> <20180416162706.43212a69@redhat.com> <13008b1f-4b59-c6e1-69d2-98f8280f6f34@redhat.com> <20180417141803.2d588b97@redhat.com> <87y3hl2fez.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:23:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y3hl2fez.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] RFC: memory/hmp: Print owners/parents in "info mtree" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Igor Mammedov , Alexey Kardashevskiy , peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" On 18/04/2018 08:32, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini writes: > >> On 17/04/2018 14:18, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>> What's the point of an object name if it cannot be unique? >>> It should be sufficient for it to be unique within parent's >>> scope and object_property_add_child() should make sure that >>> added object is unique within its parent's namespace. >>> Having named object from starters is useful as object >>> won't have to piggyback on parent (object_get_canonical_path_component) >>> when it need its own name. Then named object could use its name >>> freely anywhere including initfn, property setters/getters and >>> let object_property_add_child() take care of possible name >>> conflict. >> >> I agree that it looks nice, but I'm worried that people forget that the >> path component is only unique until object_unparent(). The use for >> DEVICE_DELETED events is already a bad thing... > > Hmm. If the canonical QOM path isn't the proper way to identify a > device in QMP, what else is? Honest question! The canonical path is; the last component alone is not. Paolo