On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:28:53 +0000 Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> In bigger objective, I wanted to discuss post this cleanup patch, is to > expand mdev to have more user friendly device names. Uh, what is unfriendly about uuids? > > Before we reach there, I should include a patch that eliminates storing UUID > itself in the mdev_device. I do not think that's a great idea. A uuid is, well, a unique identifier. What's so bad about it that it should be eliminated? > > > Also, let's not > > overstate what this particular API callback provides, it's simply access to > > the > > uuid of the device, which is a fundamental property of a mediated device. > This fundamental property is available in form of device name already. Let me reiterate that the device name is a string containing a formatted uuid, not a uuid. > > > API was added simply to provide data abstraction, allowing the struct > > mdev_device to be opaque to vendor drivers. Thanks, > > > I get that part. I prefer to remove the UUID itself from the structure and > therefore removing this API makes lot more sense? What I don't get is why you want to eliminate the uuid in the first place? Again, what's so bad about it?
