On 10/1/25 5:48 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On Oct 1, 2025, at 7:56 PM, Danilo Krummrich <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 1:51 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>> On 10/1/25 4:47 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>>>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 7:00 PM, John Hubbard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 10/1/25 3:52 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 12:38 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/1/25 6:52 AM, Zhi Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1.10.2025 13.32, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed Oct 1, 2025 at 3:22 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/30/25 5:29 PM, Alistair Popple wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-01 at 08:07 +1000, John Hubbard <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote... >>>>>>> ... >> If a driver does not support a certain device, it is not the user's >> responsibility to prevent probing. Currently nova-core does not support VFs, >> so >> it should never get probed for them in the first place. > > That works for me. If we are doing this, I would also suggest adding a > detailed comment preceding the if statement,
The nova-core piece that decides this is not an if statement. It's a const. It really is cleaner. :) saying the reason for this is because the VFs share the same device IDs when in reality we have 2 different drivers that handle the different functions. > I've got it passing tests already, I'll add appropriate comments and post it shortly, and let's see what you think. thanks, -- John Hubbard
