On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 02:57:53AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > Which ops pointer are you referring to? Do you mean the struct pci_driver > pointer? If so, no we can't access this one. We could make it accessible, but > it > would result into horrible code, wouldn't make it possible to implement the > check generically for any device (which we need anyways) and would have some > other bad implications.
Yes pci_driver. You must confirm the attached driver is following the right SRIOV protocol otherwise you can't claim the result is bound. This is where we are with PCI today at least. It sounds like you plan to come with patches changing how SRIOV enablement works in PCI susbsytem, if that also comes with a way to detect that the driver is following the rules without using pci_driver then great. But that would make me feel more strongly that this should be a core helper and the existing users should be converted to the new mechanism so we don't have two approaches here. > Even if we'd make it accessible, the driver field within a module structure > depends on the exact implementation, i.e. it depends on whether a module is > declared "by hand", or whether it is generated by a module_driver!() macro > (e.g. > module_pci_driver!(). It is kind of a bad place to end up, drivers do occasionally use their driver pointers for little things, like this for example. It is not common but it is a technique.. Jason
