Amit Shah wrote: > > I think strings are better as numbers for identifying protocols as you > > can work without a central registry for the numbers then. > > I like the way assigned numbers work: it's simpler to code, needs a > bitmap for all the ports that fits in nicely in the config space and > udev rules / scripts can point /dev/vmch02 to /dev/console. How would a third party go about assigning themselves a number? For the sake of example, imagine they develop a simple service like "guesttop" which let's the host get a listing of guest processes. They'll have to distributed app-specific udev rule patches for every guest distro, which sounds like a lot of work. The app itself is probably a very simple C program; the hardest part of making it portable across distros would be the udev rules, which is silly. Anyway, every other device has a name or uuid these days. You can still use /dev/sda1 to refer to your boot partition, but LABEL=boot is also available if you prefer. Isn't that the ethos these days? Why not both? /dev/vmch05 if you prefer, plus symlink /dev/vmch-guesttop -> /dev/vmch05 if name=guesttop was given to QEMU. If you do stay with numbers only, note that it's not like TCP/UDP port numbers because the number space is far smaller. Picking a random number that you hope nobody else uses is harder. ... Back to technical bits. If config space is tight, use a channel! Dedicate channel 0 to control, used to fetch the name (if there is one) for each number. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
