On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 08:30:19AM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 04:55:02PM +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 05:53:49PM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote:
> > It seems like neither type of user will get much mileage out of this
> > feature.  Is it really necessary or did I miss a use case?
> >
> 
> Strictly speaking, it isn't required.  But it makes sense for QEMU to
> assign node-names to any unassigned node-names, because it does make
> life easier for both humans and management software, and QEMU is the
> only one that can always ensure that every BDS has a node-name.
> 
> It is also nice for QEMU; we can now in future versions assume that
> every BDS will always have a node-name, regardless if it has been
> assigned by the user or not.
> 
> And the usage of the node-names is strictly optional by the human or
> management software user; neither is required to use the generated
> node-names, and are feel to specify their own node-name.  A user
> specified node-name will prevent an auto-generated one from being
> assigned for that specific BDS.

Thanks for the explanation.  I understand how auto-generated node-names
will be used a bit better now.  I think Eric and your arguments make
sense.

Stefan