Does anyone have any reservations about changing the volume identifier in KVM's volume creation command to be the uuid of the volume? Currently for new volumes it generates a random uuid and passes that back to be stored in the database. From an admin perspective, the only way to link a volume on the back end (be it a qcow2 image or an LVM volume) to one as reported is to look in the DB and see what this 'secondary uuid' is and look for THAT as the filename/image name on the back end. It would simply remove a layer of translating uuid to another hidden uuid to get file/volume name.
It shouldn't disrupt or change current volumes, just new ones. The only caveat I can think of so far is if we wanted multiple files/images on the back end to map to one volume, but I don't see that as a blocker since it would probably have lots of other implications to the tracking volume objects.
