On 18/04/2018 08:32, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 17/04/2018 14:18, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>> What's the point of an object name if it cannot be unique? >>> It should be sufficient for it to be unique within parent's >>> scope and object_property_add_child() should make sure that >>> added object is unique within its parent's namespace. >>> Having named object from starters is useful as object >>> won't have to piggyback on parent (object_get_canonical_path_component) >>> when it need its own name. Then named object could use its name >>> freely anywhere including initfn, property setters/getters and >>> let object_property_add_child() take care of possible name >>> conflict. >> >> I agree that it looks nice, but I'm worried that people forget that the >> path component is only unique until object_unparent(). The use for >> DEVICE_DELETED events is already a bad thing... > > Hmm. If the canonical QOM path isn't the proper way to identify a > device in QMP, what else is? Honest question!
The canonical path is; the last component alone is not. Paolo
