On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:37:48 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/4/22 16:53, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > Add KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC to signal that the
> > KVM_PV_ASYNC_DISABLE and KVM_PV_ASYNC_DISABLE_PREPARE commands for the
> > KVM_S390_PV_COMMAND ioctl are available.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 3 +++
> > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > index f7952cef1309..1e696202a569 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> > @@ -608,6 +608,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> > case KVM_CAP_S390_BPB:
> > r = test_facility(82);
> > break;
> > + case KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC:
> > + r = lazy_destroy && is_prot_virt_host();
>
> While reboot might be the best use-case for the async disable I don't
> think we should name the capability this way.
>
> KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DESTR ?
then maybe
KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED_ASYNC_DISABLE ?
>
> It's a bit long but the initial capability didn't abbreviate the
> protected part so it is what it is.
>
>
> > + break;
> > case KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED:
> > r = is_prot_virt_host();
> > break;
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > index 7f574c87a6ba..c41c108f6b14 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > @@ -1134,6 +1134,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
> > #define KVM_CAP_VM_GPA_BITS 207
> > #define KVM_CAP_XSAVE2 208
> > #define KVM_CAP_SYS_ATTRIBUTES 209
> > +#define KVM_CAP_S390_PROT_REBOOT_ASYNC 215
> >
> > #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
> >
> >
>
