Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:17:29PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 03.09.2020 um 11:48 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > If having to map from drive ID to node-name really is too much of a >> > burden, we can look for ways to make it easier, or we can make savem >> > optionally accept drive IDs instead of node-names, like we do in several >> > other places for backward compatibility. >> >> Yes, letting commands accept both node-names and drive IDs is trivial >> and we do it pretty much everywhere. Much better than randomly selecting >> an image to save the VM state to. > > Is there anything which guarantees that node-names and drive IDs will > never clash ? I didn't look for drive IDs as I was trying to ensure > a non-ambiguous lookup in case a string was both a valid node name > and a valid drive ID
If I remember correctly, we always use a pair of members, technically both optional, must specify exactly one, because a single string would not work.
