On 2011-09-14 21:42, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Such names can get fairly long I'm afraid... > > A user should never even see these names. A user probably will always > interact with devices via paths.
Right. <scratching head> But will those automatic names be used at all then? > > We can also look at doing things like user-defined aliases or something > like that. ...or a way to set the name of an auto-generated device via its pathname. > >>> Since a bus is-a device in QOM, there is no notion of having multiple >>> busses >>> under the same device. A device can implement multiple bus interfaces, >>> but can >>> only be a single bus of any given bus interface. >>> >>> Device names are completely independent of pathnames. For devices that >>> are no >>> user created, device names should be treated as opaque blobs with >>> absolutely no >>> semantic meaning. >>> >>> All device relationships are identified as named properties. A QOM path >>> name >>> consists of a named device, >> >> With a system root device called '/'. So '/' is another >> character(-sequence) that is forbidden in device names. > > Yes, but there is no system root device. There is always a generic link to some root device. I think it would be more regular to make that link an abstract device called '/' - maybe even one that can hold a larger number of children. Keeps the door open for crazy multi-root systems models. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
