On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:01:41PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote: >>> If a user is talking to the QEMU monitor directly there are plenty of ways >>> to go wrong, of which forgetting to provide an ID is a really minor one. >> >> What other problems did you have in mind? >> >>> That's why it is generally left to higher level mgmt layers to talk to >>> QEMU and deal with all the issues in this area. IOW if users are talking >>> to the monitor directly, IMHO they've already lost. >> >> I'm not following you. What do you mean by higher level mgmt layers? > > Using QEMU via libvirt, or a similar management layer and not try > to talk to the monitor and/or CLI args which are complex to get > right and not really designed for user friendliness in general. > >> Let me put it this way, if a user were to add a usb device to QEMU, say >> a usb-mouse, but forgot to give it an ID. How do you expect that user to >> remove the device from QEMU? > > object_del should be made to accept the QOM object path, eg the first > anonymous device appears with a path /machine/peripheral-anon/device[0] > so you could just do 'object_del /machine/peripheral-anon/device[0]' > > If people really want pretty short IDs, then they can remember to > specify them upfront, or use a higher level app that avoids this > kind of problem.
That seems a bit unforgiving. It is 2015. I think we can automate a few more systems.