Yes we do, userspace should use it to order events.Â Does udev not
handle that properly today?
The problem is not ordering of events, its really about the fact that
the chardev can be removed and reallocated for a different controller
(could be a completely different discovery controller) by the time
that userspace handles the event.
The same is generally true for lot of kernel devices.Â We could reduce
the chance by using the idr cyclic allocator.
Well, it was raised by Hannes and James, so I'll ask them respond here
because I don't mind having it this way. I personally think that this
is a better approach than having a cyclic idr allocator. In general, I
don't necessarily think that this is a good idea to have cyclic
controller enumerations if we don't absolutely have to...
We hit it right and left without the cyclic allocator, but that won't necessarily remove it.
Perhaps we should have had a unique token assigned to the controller, and have the event pass the name and the token.Â The cli would then, if the token is present, validate it via an ioctl before proceeding with other ioctls.
Where all the connection arguments were added we due to the reuse issue and then solving the question of how to verify and/or lookup the desired controller, by using the shotgun approach rather than being very pointed, which is what the name/token would do.