On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid <programmingk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this >>> problem. I >>> suppose giving them some time to respond would be reasonable. I'm thinking >>> if >>> no consensus has been reached in one weeks time (starting today), we turn to >>> Peter Maydell for the answer. Hopefully he will just pick which of the >>> patches he >>> likes the best. Judging by how long this problem has been ongoing, someone >>> pick the answer is probably the best we can expect. >> >> This is the kind of thing I strongly prefer to leave to the >> relevant subsystem maintainer(s). My opinion is not worth >> a great deal since I don't have a strong familiarity with >> this bit of QEMU. > > It looks unreasonable to assume any consensus can be reached over this issue. > The easy thing to do is to just let each maintainer deal with this problem > his own way. >
What feedback was there that seemed insurmountable? Last I talked to Jeff Cody he said there was no "overwhelming pushback" against his patches, just a list of concerns. This doesn't sound like a dead end so much as it sounds like we haven't planned the feature enough yet. > Markus: > I know you really wanted a single ID generating system, but it just isn't > going > to happen. I will make a patch that would only effect USB devices. All other > devices would be untouched. At least the device_del problem will be solved. > I think this is being unnecessarily hasty. We should make sure that an auto-generated ID system does not create problems for other areas of code before we rush ahead with one to solve a single problem. Let's give the universal approach some more time before we jump to the conclusion that it's impossible. --js
