rust/kernel/pci.rs | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Abhinav Ananthu <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com>
Update PCI FFI callback signatures to use `c_int` from the prelude,
instead of accessing it via `kernel::ffi::c_int`.
This follows Rust-for-Linux coding guidelines and improves ABI
correctness when interfacing with C code.
Signed-off-by: Abhinav Ananthu <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com>
---
rust/kernel/pci.rs | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci.rs b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
index 5ce07999168e..fbeeaec4e044 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/pci.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/pci.rs
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ impl<T: Driver + 'static> Adapter<T> {
extern "C" fn probe_callback(
pdev: *mut bindings::pci_dev,
id: *const bindings::pci_device_id,
- ) -> kernel::ffi::c_int {
+ ) -> c_int {
// SAFETY: The PCI bus only ever calls the probe callback with a valid pointer to a
// `struct pci_dev`.
//
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ unsafe fn do_release(pdev: &Device, ioptr: usize, num: i32) {
// `ioptr` is valid by the safety requirements.
// `num` is valid by the safety requirements.
unsafe {
- bindings::pci_iounmap(pdev.as_raw(), ioptr as *mut kernel::ffi::c_void);
+ bindings::pci_iounmap(pdev.as_raw(), ioptr as *mut c_void);
bindings::pci_release_region(pdev.as_raw(), num);
}
}
--
2.34.1
On Tue Jul 29, 2025 at 12:29 PM CEST, herculoxz wrote: > From: Abhinav Ananthu <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com> > > Update PCI FFI callback signatures to use `c_int` from the prelude, > instead of accessing it via `kernel::ffi::c_int`. > > This follows Rust-for-Linux coding guidelines and improves ABI > correctness when interfacing with C code. > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Ananthu <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> --- Cheers, Benno > --- > rust/kernel/pci.rs | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:30 PM herculoxz <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com> wrote: > > and improves ABI > correctness when interfacing with C code. I think this still sounds like it is fixing an ABI issue -- I would probably just remove that second sentence. (But no need for a v3 -- I think it can be fixed on apply unless Danilo wants it). Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
On Tue Jul 29, 2025 at 12:52 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:30 PM herculoxz <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> and improves ABI >> correctness when interfacing with C code. > > I think this still sounds like it is fixing an ABI issue -- I would > probably just remove that second sentence. I agree, the types exported via prelude are the ones from kernel::ffi. > (But no need for a v3 -- I think it can be fixed on apply unless > Danilo wants it). Yeah, I can fix it up when applying the patch. I also think the subject from v1, i.e. "use c_* types via kernel prelude", was better. This one is a bit misleading, the types in the FFI callbacks are already explicit. Unless I hear otherwise, I will also revert the subject to the one of v1 when I apply the patch. Thanks, Danilo
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Tue Jul 29, 2025 at 12:52 PM CEST, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:30 PM herculoxz <abhinav.ogl@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> and improves ABI > >> correctness when interfacing with C code. > > > > I think this still sounds like it is fixing an ABI issue -- I would > > probably just remove that second sentence. > > I agree, the types exported via prelude are the ones from kernel::ffi. > > > (But no need for a v3 -- I think it can be fixed on apply unless > > Danilo wants it). > > Yeah, I can fix it up when applying the patch. > > I also think the subject from v1, i.e. "use c_* types via kernel prelude", was > better. This one is a bit misleading, the types in the FFI callbacks are already > explicit. > > Unless I hear otherwise, I will also revert the subject to the one of v1 when I > apply the patch. With the above changes: Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.