On 08/20/09 09:31, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:55:32 am Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> Also I still think passing a 'protocol' string for each port is a good >>> idea, so you can stick that into a sysfs file for guests use. >> Or drops ports altogether and just use protocol strings... > > Both is silly, yes. > > I guess strings + HAL magic can make the /dev names sane. I don't want to > see userspace trolling through sysfs to figure out what device to open. udev can create sane /dev names (or symlinks) by checking sysfs attributes, apps just open the /dev/whatever then. > Which is why I prefer assigned numbers, which get mapped to minors. ports map trivially to minors. When using protocol strings minors can simply be dynamically auto-allocated by the guest and we don't need the port numbers in the host<->guest protocol any more. I think strings are better as numbers for identifying protocols as you can work without a central registry for the numbers then. cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
