Hi Vladimir, I remembered this series and wanted to check what the current status is, because I seemed to remember that the next step was that you would send a new version. But reading it again, you're probably waiting for more input? Let's try to get this finished.
Am 02.04.2025 um 15:05 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > On 18.10.24 16:59, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > If we want to get rid of the union, I think the best course of action > > would unifying the namespaces (so that nodes, exports and devices can't > > share the same ID) and then we could just accept a universal 'id' along > > with 'child'. > > Maybe we can go this way even without explicit restriction (which > should some how go through deprecation period, etc), but simply look > for the id among nodes, devices and exports and if found more than one > parent - fail. > > And we document, that id should not be ambiguous, should not match more > than one parent object. So, those who want to use new command will care > to make unique ids. I don't think such a state is very pretty, but it would be okay for me as an intermediate state while we go through a deprecation period to restrict IDs accordingly. So we could start with blockdev-replace returning an error on ambiguous IDs and at the same time deprecate them, and only later we would make creating nodes/devices/exports with the same ID an error. Kevin
