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!
