Hi I understood as follows. * There is no problem in a proposal 1 and a proposal 2 * It is better that the user can choose use of XML and use of command-option by the situation Therefore, I want to add both proposal 1 and proposal 2 to virsh. There is no problem in this opinion? And, I am going to correct about naming. vif --> interface vbd --> disk Thanks, Masayuki Sunou In message <20070511053125.GA30832@xxxxxxxxxx> "Re: [RFC] Device attach/detach on virsh" "Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx>" wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:21:00AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:50:40PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:50:53PM +0900, Masayuki Sunou wrote: > > > To me this proposal is not okay as-is because it looks completely tied to > > > Xen. But maybe I didn't understand, suppose I use KVM what would be the vbd > > > or vif parameter looking like ? We need at least to change the terminology > > > i.e. replace vif and vbd terms, but I'm afraid > > > > Huh ? I didn't see anything in this proposal which was Xen-specific. The > > Hum, sorry I misunderstood, I though it was using the vif and vbd internal > Xen numbers to adress the device. I was focusing on the delete operation, > and wondering what was the naming used. > > > disks where being identified based on their backend path (eg /var/lib/xen/image/foo.img > > or /dev/sda4), while network cards were being identified based on their > > MAC address. Both of those are unique identifiers used by pretty much > > any virt system. > > yup objection removed, > > Daniel > > > -- > Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/ > Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ > veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ > http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ >