On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:39:27AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 15.05.2014 um 20:41 hat Jeff Cody geschrieben: > > The only thing I don't like about moving this further back in the > > patch series is it makes the earlier patches untestable; I can't > > easily test the usage of the node-names for various intermediate BDS > > because they don't have node-names set. So that means I'll just need > > to rebase the patches prior to sending. > > I don't quite follow. Can't you always manually assign node-names? This > is how libvirt is supposed to use the interface. >
How does libvirt assign node-names to all the backing images in a qcow2 chain, for example? > I'm not totally sure whether automatically generated node-names are > a good idea, but I can see how they are useful with human monitor users > which may not specify a node-name everywhere (I've used device_add > without an ID often enough, only to find that I can't remove the device > any more). We should just make sure that they are really only used by > human users. > I don't understand. What would be the downsides of having an automatic guaranteed unique id assigned to each BDS? And why restrict that to human users only? If you are worried about node-names potentially being undesired by the user / management layer for some reason, how about this: we add a drive option, to either enable or disable automatic node-name generation for a particular drive?
