On 14.02.23 14:57, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:54:22AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 05:01:01PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
>>>> The device field is redundant, because QOM path always include device
>>>> ID when this ID exist.
>>>
>>> The flipside to that view is that applications configuring QEMU are
>>> specifying the device ID for -device (CLI) / device_add (QMP) and
>>> not the QOM path. IOW, the device ID is the more interesting field
>>> than QOM path, so feels like the wrong one to be dropping.
>>
>> QOM path is a reliable way to identify a device. Device ID isn't:
>> devices need not have one. Therefore, dropping the QOM path would be
>> wrong.
>>
>>> Is there any real benefit to dropping this ?
>>
>> The device ID is a trap for the unwary: relying on it is fine until you
>> run into a scenario where you have to deal with devices lacking IDs.
>
> When a mgmt app is configuring QEMU though, it does it exclusively
> with device ID values. If I add a device "-device foo,id=dev0",
> and then later hot-unplug it "device_del dev0", it is pretty
> reasonable to then expect that the DEVICE_DELETED even will then
> include the ID value the app has been using elsewhere.
The management application would be well advised to use QOM paths with
device_del, because only that works even for devices created by default
(which have no ID), and devices the user created behind the management
application's back.
> If the mgmt app is using IDs everywhere when dealing with a device,
> then trap effectively doesn't exist for their usage scenario.
What if we go one step further and deprecate "id" in device_add / device_del as
well?
So that user will have to use qom path also in device_add. We may return an error if user
don't specify "machine/peripheral/" prefix.. Or allow to create device with
any QOM path?
--
Best regards,
Vladimir