On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:34:04AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>> It has been over a week since we first started talking about this
>> subject. A lot of opinions have been flying around. Does this issue
>> look like it is starting to be fixed? I ju
It has been over a week since we first started talking about this subject. A
lot of opinions have been flying around. Does this issue look like it is
starting to be fixed? I just have to say I don't think it has been solved yet.
Having device_del use a QOM path does not sound very good. It is ac
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 10:34:04AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> It has been over a week since we first started talking about this
> subject. A lot of opinions have been flying around. Does this issue
> look like it is starting to be fixed? I just have to say I don't
> think it has been solved yet
On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 01.09.2015 um 16:18 hat Programmingkid geschrieben:
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> Am 27.08.2015 um 14:32 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
What I a
Am 01.09.2015 um 16:18 hat Programmingkid geschrieben:
>
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> > Am 27.08.2015 um 14:32 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
> >> I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
> >>
> >> What I am trying to do, however, is have a technical discussio
On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 27.08.2015 um 14:32 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
>> I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
>>
>> What I am trying to do, however, is have a technical discussion on
>> generating an ID in a well-formed manner. And hopefully, in
Am 27.08.2015 um 14:32 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben:
> I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
>
> What I am trying to do, however, is have a technical discussion on
> generating an ID in a well-formed manner. And hopefully, in a way
> that is useful to all interested subsystems, i
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 01:27:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 01:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:02:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>
> >> Just to be clear - libvirt will *never* use an auto-generated device
> >> IDs feature. It is way more complicated
On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM,
On 08/27/2015 01:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:02:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>> Just to be clear - libvirt will *never* use an auto-generated device
>> IDs feature. It is way more complicated to let QEMU assign device IDs
>> and then auto-detect them from some '
On 08/27/2015 12:59 PM, John Snow wrote:
>> Dan made the point that if a name is unpredictable, then we have
>> to query to learn what name was assigned. But if you add two or
>> more devices before querying, then you don't know which device has
>> which name. Predictable might actually be bette
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:02:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> Just to be clear - libvirt will *never* use an auto-generated device
> IDs feature. It is way more complicated to let QEMU assign device IDs
> and then auto-detect them from some 'info device-list' output, than
> to just speci
On 08/27/2015 09:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 06:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>> (Added Eric back in to the CC list. Looks like he got dropped
>> somewhere along the way)
>
> No thanks to mailman's inept behavior that thinks that it is okay
> to rewrite cc's to drop anyone that doesn't
On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM,
On 08/27/2015 10:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>> I applied your patch, but saw this error message when I tried to 'make' QEMU:
>>
>> GEN qmp-commands.txt
>> line 344: syntax error: expected EQMP, found SQMP
>> make: *** [qmp-commands.txt] Error 1
>> make: *** Deleting file `qmp-commands
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:08:25PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:20:20A
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:20:20AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:34:05A
On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:20:20AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Daniel P
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:03:38PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:22:58AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:22:58AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
>> What is wrong with having
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:20:20AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:34:05AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Eric Bla
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:22:58AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>>
> What is wrong with having a predictable ID?
>
> >>>
> >>> As Daniel and Eric have
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:20:20AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:34:05AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programm
On Aug 27, 2015, at 1:39 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Programmingkid writes:
>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:08 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16,
On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
What is wrong with having a predictable ID?
>>>
>>> As Daniel and Eric have noted, it could be nice to have a predictable
>>> ID. My concern with a predictab
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:34:05AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
> If we did have auto-generated names, we would need to c
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:13:25AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >
> >> What is wrong with having a predictable ID?
> >>
> >
> > As Daniel and Eric have noted, it could be nice to have a predictable
> > ID. My concern with a predictable ID is that it creates, across
> > multiple sub-systems, a
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
>>>
>>> What I am trying to do, however, is
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, J
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:34:05AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> > On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programmingkid wrote:
> >
> >>> If we did have auto-generated names, we would need to come up with a
> >>> scheme that is not going to clash with any
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programmingkid wrote:
>
>>> If we did have auto-generated names, we would need to come up with a
>>> scheme that is not going to clash with any existing naming that users
>>> of QEMU may already be doing, otherwise we risk
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:10AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
Better still might be fixing things to where we add a global command
line option that outright fails any attempt to
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 08:01:12AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:10AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >>> Better still might be fixing things to where we add a global command
> >>> line option that outright fails a
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:56:47AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On the generation scheme pro
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > I'm not married to the ID generation scheme I proposed.
> >
> > What I am trying to do, however, is have a technical discussion on
> > generating an ID in a well
On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:01:41PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>> If a user is talking to the QEMU monitor directly there are plenty of ways
>>> to go wrong, of which forgetting to provide an ID is a really minor one.
>>
>> What other pr
On 08/27/2015 07:56 AM, Programmingkid wrote:
>> If we did have auto-generated names, we would need to come up with a
>> scheme that is not going to clash with any existing naming that users
>> of QEMU may already be doing, otherwise we risk causing a regression.
>> Something as simple as what you
On 08/27/2015 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:10AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>>> Better still might be fixing things to where we add a global command
>>> line option that outright fails any attempt to create an unnamed object.
>>> The option would be off by
On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:10AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>>> Better still might be fixing things to where we add a global command
>>> line option that outright fails any attempt to create an unnamed object.
>>> The option would b
On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On the generation scheme proposed above:
>>>
>>> I understand that something you desire is an ID that is easi
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:01:41PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> > If a user is talking to the QEMU monitor directly there are plenty of ways
> > to go wrong, of which forgetting to provide an ID is a really minor one.
>
> What other problems did you have in mind?
>
> > That's why it is generall
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:39:10AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> > Better still might be fixing things to where we add a global command
> > line option that outright fails any attempt to create an unnamed object.
> > The option would be off by default for back-compat. But management
> > apps l
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33:42AM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
> >
> > On the generation scheme proposed above:
> >
> > I understand that something you desire is an ID that is easier to
> > type.
> >
> > If we wanted to make it shorter, perh
On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 06:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>> (Added Eric back in to the CC list. Looks like he got dropped
>> somewhere along the way)
>
> No thanks to mailman's inept behavior that thinks that it is okay to
> rewrite cc's to drop anyone that does
On Aug 27, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> (Added Eric back in to the CC list. Looks like he got dropped
> somewhere along the way)
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:22:08PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17
On 08/27/2015 06:32 AM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> (Added Eric back in to the CC list. Looks like he got dropped
> somewhere along the way)
No thanks to mailman's inept behavior that thinks that it is okay to
rewrite cc's to drop anyone that doesn't want duplicate email. But
don't worry about it; I have
(Added Eric back in to the CC list. Looks like he got dropped
somewhere along the way)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:22:08PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17:17PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 26, 20
Programmingkid writes:
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:08 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid
wrote:
> That is assuming they have the time
On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:08 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid
>>> wrote:
That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this
On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:04 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 06:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17:17PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
On Aug 26, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17:17PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>>
On 08/26/2015 05:48 PM, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid wrote:
>>> That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this
>>> problem. I
>>> suppose giving them some time to respond wo
On 08/26/2015 06:01 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17:17PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:17:17PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Ma
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid wrote:
>> That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this
>> problem. I
>> suppose giving them some time to respond would be reasonable. I'm thinking if
>> no consensus has bee
On 26 August 2015 at 18:16, Programmingkid wrote:
> That is assuming they have the time and/or the interest in solving this
> problem. I
> suppose giving them some time to respond would be reasonable. I'm thinking if
> no consensus has been reached in one weeks time (starting today), we turn to
>
On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right b
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:29:04PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back.
> >>
> >> Programmingkid writes:
> >>
> >>> O
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:46:43PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:38:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
You're proposing to revise a qdev
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:46:43PM -0400, Programmingkid wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:38:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> You're proposing to revise a qdev design decision, namely the purpose of
> >> IDs. This has bee
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:38:17PM +0200, 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 revi
On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back.
>>
>> Programmingkid writes:
>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>
You're proposing to
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:38:17PM +0200, 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
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:31:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back.
>
> Programmingkid 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
>
On Aug 26, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back.
Sorry I didn't think they would care so I removed them. Will keep them in the
loop for now on.
>
> Programmingkid writes:
>
>> On Aug 25, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Markus Armbruster wro
Did you drop cc's intentionally? I put them right back.
Programmingkid 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
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:
>
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:
>
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:
69 matches
Mail list logo
