On 2011-09-19 16:24, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 19.09.2011 16:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> On 09/19/2011 02:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2011-09-16 20:03, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> So this is a simplification that I plan on running with. For now, I think >>>> this >>>> series is the right next step because it gives us a path name for the name >>>> (although different syntax) and let's us enforce that all devices has a >>>> canonical path. >>> >>> For something that changes lots of devices and, at the same time, is >>> going to be removed again, I'm hesitating to call it the right direction. >>> >>> A right step would be, IMHO, to introduce a generic introspectable >>> device link so that parent devices can reference their children and a >>> visitor can derive a child's relative name from that link name. Then >>> make sure this link type is consistently used. >>> >>> I really dislike this focusing on assigning names internally and using >>> them in QEMU-internal APIs. They should just fall out of the core when >>> external interaction is required. >> >> I thought a lot about this over the weekend and decided that I should go in >> a >> different direction based on this discussion. >> [...] > > Sounds like a good direction to me. (At least until someone brings up > the details :-))
Yeah. Maybe we should keep this at concept level to avoid getting into disagreement again. ;) Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
