[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aTho82cpiQbrrCdd@earendel>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:22:43 -0500
From: Peter Colberg <pcolberg@...hat.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Abdiel Janulgue <abdiel.janulgue@...il.com>,
Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Zhi Wang <zhiw@...dia.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] rust: pci: add is_virtfn(), to check for VFs
On Sun, Dec 07, 2025 at 01:28:19AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 05:19:05PM -0500, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> >
> > Add a method to check if a PCI device is a Virtual Function (VF) created
> > through Single Root I/O Virtualization (SR-IOV).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Colberg <pcolberg@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > This patch was originally part of the series "rust: pci: expose
> > is_virtfn() and reject VFs in nova-core" and modified as follows:
> > - Replace true -> `true` in doc comment.
> > - Shorten description and omit justification specific to nova-core.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250930220759.288528-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com/
> > ---
> > rust/kernel/pci.rs | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> > index 82e128431f080fde78a06dc5c284ab12739e747e..c20b8daeb7aadbef9f6ecfc48c972436efac9a08 100644
> > --- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
> > @@ -409,6 +409,12 @@ pub fn resource_start(&self, bar: u32) -> Result<bindings::resource_size_t> {
> > Ok(unsafe { bindings::pci_resource_start(self.as_raw(), bar.try_into()?) })
> > }
> >
> > + /// Returns `true` if this device is a Virtual Function (VF).
> > + pub fn is_virtfn(&self) -> bool {
>
> Add #[inline] here and to `is_physfn()` similar to other methods in this struct?
Thanks for your review! Where should the line be drawn for #[inline]?
Should these be #[inline] as well and why (not)?
- Device::num_vf()
- Device<Core>::enable_sriov()
- Device<Core>::disable_sriov()
Why is Device<Core>::enable_device_mem() not #[inline], while
Device<Core>::set_master() is [1]? Is the former an oversight?
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/driver-core/driver-core.git/tree/rust/kernel/pci.rs?id=67a454e6b1c604555c04501c77b7fedc5d98a779#n433
Thanks,
Peter
>
> With that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
>
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
>
> > + // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`.
> > + unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).is_virtfn() != 0 }
> > + }
> > +
> > /// Returns the size of the given PCI BAR resource.
> > pub fn resource_len(&self, bar: u32) -> Result<bindings::resource_size_t> {
> > if !Bar::index_is_valid(bar) {
> >
> > --
> > 2.51.1
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists