On 03.09.2025 16:02, Teddy Astie wrote: > Le 02/09/2025 à 16:10, Jan Beulich a écrit : >> On 02.09.2025 15:24, Teddy Astie wrote: >>> Regarding sgn, maybe we can use `segment` instead ? >> >> Why not segment_group or seg_group (seeing how devfn also is an >> abbreviation)? >> And if we omit _number there and on devfn, it's hard to see why it shouldn't >> be just "bus" then as well. > > So overall > > uint16_t segment_group; > uint8_t bus; > uint8_t devfn; > > ? > > segment_group looks a bit off compared with the rest. > We could use `seg` like we do in Xen PCI code, as it is about PCI > segment here.
I wouldn't mind that, yet I wonder why the spec says "group". If there's a (good) reason, carrying this through into our naming may be advisable. Jan
