[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM
From: |
Jan Kiszka |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:15:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
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
- [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Jan Kiszka, 2011/09/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM,
Jan Kiszka <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Jan Kiszka, 2011/09/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Jan Kiszka, 2011/09/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/15
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Kevin Wolf, 2011/09/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Anthony Liguori, 2011/09/16
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM, Edgar E. Iglesias, 2011/09/14