On 2025/5/18 22:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.05.2025 11:05, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>> @@ -83,6 +99,100 @@ static int assign_virtual_sbdf(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>
>> #endif /* CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT */
>>
>> +static struct vpci_register *vpci_get_register(struct vpci *vpci,
>> + unsigned int offset,
>> + unsigned int size)
>> +{
>> + const struct vpci_register r = { .offset = offset, .size = size };
>> + struct vpci_register *rm;
>> +
>> + ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&vpci->lock));
>> + list_for_each_entry ( rm, &vpci->handlers, node )
>> + {
>> + int cmp = vpci_register_cmp(&r, rm);
>> +
>> + if ( !cmp && rm->offset == offset && rm->size == size )
>
> What's the point of using vpci_register_cmp() when you need to do
> the "exact match" check here anyway?
Oh, you are right.
Will remove "!cmp" here in next version.
>
>> +static int vpci_capability_mask(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int cap)
>
> What's the word "mask" indicating here? The function doesn't return any
> mask afaics. Do you perhaps mean "hide"?
Yes, hide.
This is a question of naming preference.
I remember Roger suggested this name, but maybe I remember wrong.
For double confirmation, hi Roger, are you fine that I change this name from
mask to hide?
>
> Jan
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.
