On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:05:10AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/15/2012 10:27 AM, Laine Stump wrote: > > A couple of situations have come up recently that could be solved by > > every interface in every domain always having a unique identifier > > associated with it: > > > > > > > Does this sound like a reasonable idea? Any reasons *not* to do it? > > I think the idea makes sense. > > > Problems we'll need to take care of if we add it (for example, existing > > guest interfaces will all need to get a uuid during the upgrade process, > > similar to the way we add a mac address to all existing networks that > > don't have one). Any other things you can think of doing with uuid if we > > add one? > > I'm worried about how it gets added. Adding it to src/datatypes.h > virInterfacePtr would be most similar to how we do things for other > objects with a UUID (virDomainPtr, virNetworkPtr, virStoragePoolPtr, > virSecretPtr, virNWFilterPtr), but touching datatypes.h is a huge pain > because it would be an ABI break. How do we keep RPC protocol sane > without passing the UUID around, but client and server are still always > referring to the same object? virInterfacePtr != <interface> in domain XML, so this isn't an issue Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list