Am 19.09.2011 16:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 09/19/2011 02:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-09-16 20:03, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> So this is a simplification that I plan on running with. For now, I think >>> this >>> series is the right next step because it gives us a path name for the name >>> (although different syntax) and let's us enforce that all devices has a >>> canonical path. >> >> For something that changes lots of devices and, at the same time, is >> going to be removed again, I'm hesitating to call it the right direction. >> >> A right step would be, IMHO, to introduce a generic introspectable >> device link so that parent devices can reference their children and a >> visitor can derive a child's relative name from that link name. Then >> make sure this link type is consistently used. >> >> I really dislike this focusing on assigning names internally and using >> them in QEMU-internal APIs. They should just fall out of the core when >> external interaction is required. > > I thought a lot about this over the weekend and decided that I should go in a > different direction based on this discussion. > [...]
Sounds like a good direction to me. (At least until someone brings up the details :-)) Kevin
