[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?
From: |
Programmingkid |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:03:38 -0400 |
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:22:58AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong with having a predictable ID?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Daniel and Eric have noted, it could be nice to have a predictable
>>>>> ID. My concern with a predictable ID is that it creates, across
>>>>> multiple sub-systems, an ABI that we will then need to make sure
>>>>> always works.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, I don't want management software or a user to rely on us
>>>>> parsing devices, or image filenames / block driver states in a certain
>>>>> order, and then anticipate the ID name. I am concerned about creating
>>>>> an interface that may inadvertently "break" later on, and imposing a
>>>>> burden on QEMU that isn't reasonable. Perhaps it is enough to just
>>>>> rely on documentation for this, without enforcing it in the scheme.
>>>>
>>>> If we do nothing, QEMU stays broken. The monitor command device_del
>>>> and others that need an ID will not work still. Hopefully any changes we
>>>> make to QEMU will be robust enough stand the test of time.
>>>
>>> That is not correct. It is possible for us to fix object_del / device_del
>>> to accept the QOM object path. It isn't pretty but it is a solution that
>>> gives everything a stable unique path ID to use for deletion even if the
>>> user forgets to give a pretty path-less ID.
>>
>> This QOM path might be better than nothing. Hopefully someone will make this
>> patch and share it with us.
>
> I sent a patch to support that, since it turned out to be pretty
> trivial to implement. So that at least solves the immediate blocking
> issue of deleting devices with an ID. The question of usability and
> auto-generated IDs can continue in parallel....
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
I applied your patch, but saw this error message when I tried to 'make' QEMU:
GEN qmp-commands.txt
line 344: syntax error: expected EQMP, found SQMP
make: *** [qmp-commands.txt] Error 1
make: *** Deleting file `qmp-commands.txt'
Know what it means?
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Programmingkid, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Jeff Cody, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Programmingkid, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Programmingkid, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?,
Programmingkid <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?, Eric Blake, 2015/08/27
Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Programmingkid, 2015/08/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Programmingkid, 2015/08/26
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Daniel P. Berrange, 2015/08/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs? (was: [PATCH] qdev-monitor.c: Add device id generation), Programmingkid, 2015/08/27