On 2011-09-06 18:08, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 09/06/2011 11:05 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2011-09-06 17:51, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> I'm still contemplating how we go about doing this. This series >>> introduces a couple new concepts like QMP class hinting anonymous IDs. >>> I'm concerned that we'll further complicate the need to support >>> backwards compatibility. >> >> Anonymous IDs must not be considered stable. If you prefer, we could try >> to filter them out for QMP use. Need to check though if there is a good >> location to catch them, but the rule is trivial. >> >> I will also happily drop anonymous IDs again once we have converted all >> devices to stable QOM full path addressing. But that will simply take >> too much time to wait for it I'm afraid. >> >>> >>> Would the command be useful if you couldn't address devices? If it just >>> dumped the full machine state all at once? That would at least obviate >>> the need to add anonymous IDs. >> >> Theoretically usable, but extremely unhandy. I would not like so see >> such an interface exposed to users. > > What about just taking the device type (iow the savevm section name)? > > In most scenarios, it's probably easier for a user and will still only > have a single match.
This naming is not yet exposed via any user interface. We would have to extend info qtree, not sure if we want this... Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
