Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 4 authors, 2013-09-30
DORMANTno replies

[PATCH v4 4/4] KVM: Add documentation for KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET ioctl

From: Alexander Graf <hidden>
Date: 2013-09-30 09:06:40

On 26.09.2013, at 00:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.09.2013, at 18:19, Christoffer Dall wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:58:07PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Graf [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On 25.09.2013, at 11:26, Anup Patel wrote:
quoted
To implement CPU=Host we have added KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET
vm ioctl which provides information to user space required for
creating VCPU matching underlying Host.

This patch adds info related to this new KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET
vm ioctl in the KVM API documentation.

Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <redacted>
---
Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt |   27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
index 858aecf..f31e6e8 100644
--- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
+++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
@@ -2303,8 +2303,28 @@ Possible features:
    - KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT: Starts the CPU in a 32bit mode.
      Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT (arm64 only).

+4.83 KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET
Why 4.83 and not 4.86? It feels backwards to rename all these other sections.
I wanted to have KVM_ARM_xxxx IOCTLs located nearby hence
placed KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET after KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT.

There is no point in keeping KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET
after KVM_PPC_RTAS_DEFINE_TOKEN and make
KVM_PPC_RTAS_DEFINE_TOKEN dangle in-between documentation
of various KVM_ARM_xxxx IOCTLs.
I checked the git log and this is not the first time this has happened,
so I think Anup's point here is valid.
Well, I think it makes sense to be consistent here. Maybe we should add a new section for arch specific ioctls so that we get our own number space? But regardless, all subarchs should try and follow the same scheme - regardless of what the scheme is :).
Ok, I think I finally grasped what Anup was trying to say. The ioctl id for this one is 0xaf, in between 0xae (KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT) and 0xb0 (KVM_GET_REG_LIST), so he wanted to make the documentation follow the ioctl numbering scheme. That makes sense.

However, why do we have this gap there in the first place?


Alex
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help