On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 1:02 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On 7/22/25 12:57 PM, Benno Lossin wrote: >> On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 11:51 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> I think they're good, but we're pretty late in the cycle now. That should be >>> fine though, we can probably take them through the nova tree, or in the worst >>> case share a tag, if needed. >>> >>> Given that, it would probably be good to add the Guarantee section on as_raw(), >>> as proposed by Benno, right away. >>> >>> @Benno: Any proposal on what this section should say? >> >> At a minimum I'd say "The returned pointer is valid.", but that doesn't >> really say for what it's valid... AFAIK you're mostly using this pointer >> to pass it to the C side, in that case, how about: > > It is used for for FFI calls and to access fields of the underlying > struct pci_dev. By "access fields" you mean read-only? --- Cheers, Benno
