Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2011-09-14 21:42, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Such names can get fairly long I'm afraid...
> 
> A user should never even see these names.  A user probably will always
> interact with devices via paths.

Right.
<scratching head>
But will those automatic names be used at all then?

> 
> We can also look at doing things like user-defined aliases or something
> like that.

...or a way to set the name of an auto-generated device via its pathname.

> 
>>> Since a bus is-a device in QOM, there is no notion of having multiple
>>> busses
>>> under the same device.  A device can implement multiple bus interfaces,
>>> but can
>>> only be a single bus of any given bus interface.
>>>
>>> Device names are completely independent of pathnames.  For devices that
>>> are no
>>> user created, device names should be treated as opaque blobs with
>>> absolutely no
>>> semantic meaning.
>>>
>>> All device relationships are identified as named properties.  A QOM path
>>> name
>>> consists of a named device,
>>
>> With a system root device called '/'. So '/' is another
>> character(-sequence) that is forbidden in device names.
> 
> Yes, but there is no system root device.

There is always a generic link to some root device. I think it would be
more regular to make that link an abstract device called '/' - maybe
even one that can hold a larger number of children. Keeps the door open
for crazy multi-root systems models.

Jan

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature