On 8/1/25 17:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 at 16:47, Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.com> wrote:
I have modified your patch with :
+/**
+ * vfio_pci_from_vfio_device: Transform from VFIODevice to
+ * VFIOPCIDevice
+ *
+ * This function checks if the given @vbasedev is a VFIO PCI device.
+ * If it is, it returns the containing VFIOPCIDevice.
+ *
+ * @vbasedev: The VFIODevice to transform
+ *
+ * Return: The VFIOPCIDevice on success, NULL on failure.
+ */
See https://github.com/legoater/qemu/tree/vfio-10.2.
I don't think it's really necessary, as these are internal APIs and
none are documented, but Philippe seems keen on it. I guess he plans
to volunteer to document the rest ;)
This is one of those cases where we have a rule in place
that we apply on code review for newly added prototypes
in header files, as an exercise in trying to at least not
make an existing problem worse :-)
Sure. May be, this is something we could add to checkpatch.pl
then ? This would reduce the resends for simple things.
I think Philippe's intent was just to say "put that one
line comment by the prototype in the .h file rather than
by the implementation in the .c file", rather than to
require a full-on doc-comment format comment, though
I do appreciate having one.
I've tried to reorganize the VFIO code to define some software
subcomponents and layers in previous versions. This to handle
recent (rather significant) changes and also because vfio-pci
was initially a device and is gradually evolving into a kind
of library.
I'd also like to address documentation, so my comment was
self-interested :) as it's a pretty broad topic; any help is
welcome !
I should find a way to generate some of it to start with. At least.
Thanks,
C.
