On Wed Mar 4, 2026 at 3:26 PM CET, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 10:18:52AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 10:47:50AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 04:15:20PM -0500, Peter Colberg wrote: >> > > Add Rust abstractions for the Single Root I/O Virtualization (SR-IOV) >> > > capability of a PCI device. Provide a minimal set of wrappers for the >> > > SR-IOV C API to enable and disable SR-IOV for a device, and query if >> > > a PCI device is a Physical Function (PF) or Virtual Function (VF). >> > >> > <...> >> > >> > > For PF drivers written in C, disabling SR-IOV on remove() may be opted >> > > into by setting the flag managed_sriov in the pci_driver structure. For >> > > PF drivers written in Rust, disabling SR-IOV on unbind() is mandatory. >> > >> > Why? Could you explain the rationale behind this difference between C and >> > Rust? Let me remind you that SR‑IOV devices which do not disable VFs do so >> > for a practical and well‑established reason: maximizing hardware >> > utilization. >> >> Personally I think drivers doing this are wrong. That such a driver >> bug was allowed to become UAPI is pretty bad. The rust approach is >> better. > > We already had this discussion. I see this as a perfectly valid > use-case.
Can you remind about a specific use-case for this please? (Ideally, one that can't be solved otherwise.)
