Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we auto-generate IDs?

[Markus Armbruster]

Did you drop cc's intentionally?  I put them right back.

Programmingkid <address@hidden> writes:

> On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> You're proposing to revise a qdev design decision, namely the purpose of
>> IDs.  This has been discussed before, and IDs remained unchanged.
>> Perhaps it's time to revisit this issue.  Cc'ing a few more people.
>> 
>> Relevant prior threads:
>> * [PATCH] qdev: Reject duplicate and anti-social device IDs
>>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/71230/focus=72272
>> * [PATCH 6/6] qdev: Generate IDs for anonymous devices
>>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/114853/focus=114858
>> * [PATCH] qdev: Assign a default device ID when none is provided.
>>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/249702
>> * IDs in QOM (was: [PATCH] util: Emancipate id_wellformed() from QemuOpt
>>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/299945/focus=300381
>> 
>
> After reading all the threads, I realize why all the attempts to
> accept a device ID patch failed.
> It is because it was assumed everyone would agree on one patch to
> accept. This is
> very unlikely. It would take someone in a leadership position to
> decide which patch
> should be accepted. From one of the threads above, I saw Anthony
> Liguori participate.
> He was in the perfect position to make the choice. The person who is
> in his position now
> is Peter Maydell. Maybe we should just ask him to look at all the
> candidate patches and
> have him pick one to use. 

Yes, when no consensus emerges, problems tend to go unsolved.

Before we appeal to authority to break the deadlock, we should make
another attempt at finding consensus.

I know that we've entertained the idea of automatically generated IDs
for block layer objects (that's why I cc'ed some block guys).

I definitely want to hear Andreas's and Paolo's opinion (also cc'ed), if
they have one.