On 05/28/2013 07:12:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/29/2013 09:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 06:30:40 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> >> >>> @@ -939,6 +940,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_ucas_mapping {
>> >> >>> #define KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe2, struct
>> >> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >> >>> #define KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe3, struct
>> >> >>> kvm_device_attr)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> +/* ioctl for SPAPR TCE IOMMU */
>> >> >>> +#define KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU _IOW(KVMIO, 0xe4,
struct
>> >> >>> kvm_create_spapr_tce_iommu)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Shouldn't this go under the vm ioctl section?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU ioctl (the version for emulated
>> devices) is
>> >> in this section so I decided to keep them together. Wrong?
>> >
>> > You decided to keep KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU together with
>> > KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Sigh. That's the same thing repeated. There's only one IOCTL.
Nothing is
> being "kept together".
Sorry, I meant this ioctl - KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.
But you didn't put it in the same section as KVM_CREATE_SPAPR_TCE.
0xe0 begins a different section.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
