Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] PCI/IOV: Return u16 from pci_sriov_get_totalvfs()

"Alexandre Courbot" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.nova-gpu,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed Jun 24, 2026 at 10:39 PM JST, David Laight wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:52 +0900
> "Alexandre Courbot" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue Jun 23, 2026 at 4:43 AM JST, Zhi Wang wrote:
>> > pci_sriov_get_totalvfs() reports a VF count, not an errno-style
>> > status. It returns 0 when SR-IOV is unavailable or the device is not a
>> > PF, and otherwise returns the PF's driver_max_VFs value.
>> >
>> > driver_max_VFs is stored as a u16 in struct pci_sriov. It is derived
>> > from the SR-IOV TotalVFs field or from a driver-provided limit, so the
>> > implementation cannot return a negative value.
>> >
>> > Change the declaration, CONFIG_PCI_IOV stub, and implementation to
>> > return u16. Update callers to store the result in u16 variables, remove
>> > obsolete negative-value checks, and use unsigned format specifiers where
>> > needed.
>> >
>> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: [email protected]
>> > Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <[email protected]>  
>> 
>> Suggested-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>> 
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/crypto/hisilicon/qm.c                   | 8 +++++---
>> >  drivers/crypto/intel/qat/qat_common/adf_sriov.c | 6 +++---
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sriov_pf.c                | 6 ++----
>> >  drivers/misc/genwqe/card_base.c                 | 6 ++----
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/cavium/thunder/nic_main.c  | 2 +-
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/emulex/benet/be_main.c     | 3 ++-
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/sriov.c | 3 ++-
>> >  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10_sriov.c           | 2 +-  
>> 
>> I believe that you can avoid converting all these drivers in this patch.
>> The implicit `u16 -> int` conversion done by C should result in the
>> expected behavior, and it will be fewer Acked-by to collect.
>
> The generated code is also likely to be slightly better if the function
> return value is a 32bit value.
>
> Similarly you don't really want to do any kind of maths on local variables
> that aren't 32bit (or 64bit on 64bit builds).
>
> The fact that the domain of a value fits in 16 bits doesn't mean that
> it is better to use u16 - it is usually worse.
> Pretty much the only place u16 should be used is to reduce the size
> of structures.
>
> So it is probably correct to change the return type to unsigned int and
> remove the error return checks, but nothing else.

For C, I agree that unsigned int is the safest type.

Rust otoh does not do implicit integer promotion, and making it return a
`u16` carries useful range information. I wonder if we could have a
private `__pci_sriov_get_totalvfs` that returns a `u16`, make
`pci_sriov_get_totalvfs` promote it to an `unsigned int` and return it,
while the Rust bindings would invoke `__pci_sriov_get_totalvfs` so they
can expose a `u16`?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.