Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
>>> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
>>>
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> Markus Armbr
On 06/01/2010 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Luiz Capitulino writes:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
Luiz Capitulino writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
We need Device IDs to be unique and not
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
>> > Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >
>> >> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
>> >> nodes can always be
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino writes:
>
> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> > Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >
> >> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
> >> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
Luiz Capitulino writes:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
>> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
>>
>> We already have some protection against duplicate IDs, but it got
>>
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:19:59 +0200
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:09:34 +0200
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> >> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>> Two bugs that might not be related to this thread:
> >>>
> >>> * "id" member is not mandatory for the device_add co
On 06/01/2010 04:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Main point is whether "id" is required or not, I think it should be.
And I think it might be recommended but should become mandatory
(specifically not for HMP).
I agree. Making id a mandatory argument will just result in clients
being f
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:09:34 +0200
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>> Two bugs that might not be related to this thread:
>>>
>>> * "id" member is not mandatory for the device_add command:
>>>
>>> { "execute": "device_add", "arguments": { "driver":
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:09:34 +0200
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > Two bugs that might not be related to this thread:
> >
> > * "id" member is not mandatory for the device_add command:
> >
> > { "execute": "device_add", "arguments": { "driver": "e1000" } }
> > {"return
Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> Two bugs that might not be related to this thread:
>
> * "id" member is not mandatory for the device_add command:
>
> { "execute": "device_add", "arguments": { "driver": "e1000" } }
> {"return": {}}
Once we enable qtree paths for device_del, this is no longer
On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
>
> We already have some protection against duplicate IDs, but it got
> holes:
>
> * We don't assign IDs t
On 05/31/10 16:13, Markus Armbruster wrote:
We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
We already have some protection against duplicate IDs, but it got
holes:
* We don't assign IDs to default devices.
* -device
12 matches
Mail list logo
