[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH 1/2] util - add automated ID generation util
From: |
Jeff Cody |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH 1/2] util - add automated ID generation utility |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:15:35 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:55:15PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 11:23 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> > Multiple sub-systems in QEMU may find it useful to generated IDs
> > for objects that a user may reference via QMP or HMP. This patch
> > presents a standardized way to do it, so that automatic ID generation
> > follows the same rules.
> >
> > This patch enforces the following rules when generating an ID:
> >
> > 1.) Guarantee no collisions with a user-specified ID
> > 2.) Identify the sub-system the ID belongs to
> > 3.) Guarantee of uniqueness
> > 4.) Spoiling predictibility, to avoid creating an assumption
> > of object ordering and parsing (i.e., we don't want users to think
> > they can guess the next ID based on prior behavior).
> >
> > The scheme for this is as follows (no spaces):
> >
> > # subsys D RR
> > Reserved char --| | | |
> > Subsytem String -----| | |
>
> s/Subsytem/Subsystem/
>
> > Unique number (64-bit) --| |
> > Two-digit random number ---|
> >
> > For example, a generated node-name for the block sub-system may take the
> > look like this:
>
> s/take the//
>
> >
> > #block076
> >
> > The caller of id_generate() is responsible for freeing the generated
> > node name string with g_free().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Cody <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > include/qemu-common.h | 8 ++++++++
> > util/id.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
> >
>
> > +char *id_generate(IdSubSystems id)
> > +{
> > + const char *id_subsys_str[] = {
>
> s/id_/const id_/
>
Good point.
> > + [ID_QDEV] = "qdev",
> > + [ID_BLOCK] = "block",
> > + };
>
> Do we want some sort of compile-time assertion that we have entries for
> all id values?...
>
> > +
> > + static uint64_t id_counters[ID_MAX];
> > + uint32_t rnd;
> > +
> > + assert(id < ID_MAX);
>
> ...maybe in the form of assert(id_subsys_str[id])
>
Yes, I think we do. If one is missing, that is certainly a mistake,
and we run the risk of collisions as well.
>
> > +
> > + rnd = g_random_int_range(0, 99);
> > +
> > + return g_strdup_printf("%c%s%" PRIu64 "%" PRId32, ID_SPECIAL_CHAR,
> > + id_subsys_str[id],
> > + id_counters[id]++,
> > + rnd);
> > +}
> >
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
>
Thanks
-Jeff