> while this is kvm code, my current plan is to submit the "final" > version after review and probably some fixes/renames via Martin > together with the other patches. Are you ok with that? Right now it > seems that the CAP number is still fine. Sure, though there will be a capability introduced by PPC for similar purposes, so check for conflicts. On 17/01/2018 12:18, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > index 2c93cbb..0c18f73 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > @@ -421,6 +421,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) > case KVM_CAP_S390_GS: > r = test_facility(133); > break; > + case KVM_CAP_S390_SEB: > + r = test_facility(82); > + break; > default: > r = 0; Can you add a generic "test facility" capability and ioctl? Paolo
