From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yu Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6 v3] PCI: document the change Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:38:55 +0800 Message-ID: <491EC2DF.2070704@uniscape.net> References: <20081001160706.GI13822@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Zhao, Yu" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Jesse Barnes , Randy Dunlap , Grant Grundler , Alex Chiang , Roland Dreier , Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081001160706.GI13822@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 04:28:45PM +0800, Zhao, Yu wrote: >> +To register SR-IOV service, Physical Function device driver needs to call: >> + int pci_iov_register(struct pci_dev *dev, >> + int (*notify)(struct pci_dev *, u32), char **entries) > > I think a better interface would put the 'notify' into the struct > pci_driver. That would make 'notify' a bad name .... how about > 'virtual'? There's also no documentation for the second parameter to > 'notify'. Yes, putting the callback function to the 'pci_driver' is better. Looks like the 'virtual' is not very descriptive (and it's a adj. while other callbacks are verb). Any other candidates? Thanks, Yu