On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 05:54:36 +0000 Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > > I get that part. I prefer to remove the UUID itself from the structure > > > and therefore removing this API makes lot more sense? > > > > Mdev and support tools around mdev are based on UUIDs because it's defined > > in the documentation. > When we introduce newer device naming scheme, it will update the > documentation also. > May be that is the time to move to .rst format too. You are aware that there are existing tools that expect a uuid naming scheme, right? > > > I don't think it's as simple as saying "voila, UUID > > dependencies are removed, users are free to use arbitrary strings". We'd > > need > > to create some kind of naming policy, what characters are allows so that we > > can potentially expand the creation parameters as has been proposed a couple > > times, how do we deal with collisions and races, and why should we make such > > a change when a UUID is a perfectly reasonable devices name. Thanks, > > > Sure, we should define a policy on device naming to be more relaxed. > We have enough examples in-kernel. > Few that I am aware of are netdev (vxlan, macvlan, ipvlan, lot more), rdma > etc which has arbitrary device names and ID based device names. > > Collisions and race is already taken care today in the mdev core. Same unique > device names continue. I'm still completely missing a rationale _why_ uuids are supposedly bad/restricting/etc. We want to uniquely identify a device, across different types of vendor drivers. An uuid is a unique identifier and even a well-defined one. Tools (e.g. mdevctl) are relying on it for mdev devices today. What is the problem you're trying to solve?