Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 06/01/2010 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Luiz Capitulino<lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:44:24 +0200
>>> Markus Armbruster<arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Luiz Capitulino<lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 16:13:12 +0200
>>>>> Markus Armbruster<arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We need Device IDs to be unique and not contain '/' so device tree
>>>>>> nodes can always be unambigously referenced by tree path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already have some protection against duplicate IDs, but it got
>>>>>> holes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * We don't assign IDs to default devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * -device and device_add use the ID of a qemu_device_opts. Which
>>>>>> rejects duplicate IDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * pci_add nic -net use either the ID or option "name" of
>>>>>> qemu_net_opts. And there's our hole. Reproducible with "-net
>>>>>> user
>>>>>> -net nic,id=foo -device lsi,id=foo".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Two bugs that might not be related to this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> * "id" member is not mandatory for the device_add command:
>>>>>
>>>>> { "execute": "device_add", "arguments": { "driver": "e1000" } }
>>>>> {"return": {}}
>>>>>
>>>> Works as designed.
>>>>
>>> What about netdev_add?
>>>
>>> { "execute": "netdev_add", "arguments": { "type": "user" } }
>>> {"error": {"class": "MissingParameter", "desc": "Parameter 'id' is
>>> missing", "data": {"name": "id"}}}
>>>
>> The only way to put a netdev to use is connecting it to a NIC with
>> -device DRIVER,netdev=ID,... And that requires an ID.
>>
>
> To be honest, I think we should universally require an id parameter or
> we should auto-assign one and return it during creation.
>
> Implicit/Null ids with QemuOpts are really difficult to work with and it
> certainly makes device addressing a lot easier.I really see no need for this additional burden. We always have unique qtree paths for devices. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
