From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55427) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTL9J-0001MN-L4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:32:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTL9C-0005hB-IK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:32:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32270) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTL9C-0005h6-BN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:32:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:31:58 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20140915013158.GA2639@fam-t430.nay.redhat.com> References: <8738bvv4dm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8738bvv4dm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] BB name vs. BDS name in the QAPI schema List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , Luiz Capitulino , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Canet On Sat, 09/13 19:04, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > I actually like having separate parameters for separate kinds of names. > > However, BlockdevRef appears to tie our hand: it's an anonymous union, > which means only the value is on the wire, and the receiving end uses > its type to determine which union member it is. Both kinds of names are > strings, so we can't have separate union members for them. > > Opinions? Why wouldn't it work without distinguishing it in the QAPI side? I remember at the time of introducing node-name, it was in a separate namespace, but now it's not. Then why should the user care *whether* a name is "device" or "node-name"? Fam