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.
If the mgmt app is using IDs everywhere when dealing with a device,
then trap effectively doesn't exist for their usage scenario.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|