On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back. >> >> Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> >>>> You're proposing to revise a qdev design decision, namely the purpose of >>>> IDs. This has been discussed before, and IDs remained unchanged. >>>> Perhaps it's time to revisit this issue. Cc'ing a few more people. >>>> >>>> Relevant prior threads: >>>> * [PATCH] qdev: Reject duplicate and anti-social device IDs >>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/71230/focus=72272 >>>> * [PATCH 6/6] qdev: Generate IDs for anonymous devices >>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/114853/focus=114858 >>>> * [PATCH] qdev: Assign a default device ID when none is provided. >>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/249702 >>>> * IDs in QOM (was: [PATCH] util: Emancipate id_wellformed() from QemuOpt >>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/299945/focus=300381 >>>> >>> >>> After reading all the threads, I realize why all the attempts to >>> accept a device ID patch failed. >>> It is because it was assumed everyone would agree on one patch to >>> accept. This is >>> very unlikely. It would take someone in a leadership position to >>> decide which patch >>> should be accepted. From one of the threads above, I saw Anthony >>> Liguori participate. >>> He was in the perfect position to make the choice. The person who is >>> in his position now >>> is Peter Maydell. Maybe we should just ask him to look at all the >>> candidate patches and >>> have him pick one to use. >> >> Yes, when no consensus emerges, problems tend to go unsolved. >> >> Before we appeal to authority to break the deadlock, we should make >> another attempt at finding consensus. >> >> I know that we've entertained the idea of automatically generated IDs >> for block layer objects (that's why I cc'ed some block guys). > > Yeah, I was one of the ones that proposed some auto-generated IDs for > the block layer, specifically for BlockDriverState, making use of the > node-name field that Benoit introduced a while ago. Here is my patch > (not sure if this is the latest version, but it is sufficient for this > discussion): > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/355990/ > > I'm not sure about the requirements needed by device ID names, and > they may of course differ from what I was thinking for BDS entries. > > Here is what I was after with my patch for node-name auto-generation: > > * Identifiable as QEMU generated / reserved namespace > > * Guaranteed uniqueness > > * Non-predictable (don't want users trying to guess / assume > generated node-names) > > My approach was overkill in some ways (24 characters!). But for > better or worse, what I had was: > > __qemu##00000000IAIYNXXR > ^^^^^^^^ > QEMU namespace ----| ^^^^^^^^ > | ^^^^^^^^^ > Increment counter, unique | | > | > Random string, to spoil prediction |
Yikes! 24 characters long. That is a bit much to type. Thank you very much for your effort.
