On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:58:07PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 25.09.2013, at 11:26, Anup Patel wrote: > > > >> 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 <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> 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. -Christoffer _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
