On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 08:05:06PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 02:37:09PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > From: Quentin Perret <qper...@google.com>
> >
> > commit a10f373ad3c760dd40b41e2f69a800ee7b8da15e upstream.
> >
> > The documentation classifies KVM_ENABLE_CAP with KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP_VM
> > as a vcpu ioctl, which is incorrect. Fix it by specifying it as a VM
> > ioctl.
> >
> > Fixes: e5d83c74a580 ("kvm: make KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP_VM architecture
> > agnostic")
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qper...@google.com>
> > Message-Id: <20210108165349.747359-1-qper...@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
> >
> > ---
> > Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> > @@ -1319,7 +1319,7 @@ documentation when it pops into existenc
> >
> > :Capability: KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP_VM
> > :Architectures: all
> > -:Type: vcpu ioctl
> > +:Type: vm ioctl
> > :Parameters: struct kvm_enable_cap (in)
> > :Returns: 0 on success; -1 on error
>
> Um, how did this patch made it in?
It came from my scripts, keeping documentation correct seems to be
something it wanted to do :)
thanks,
greg k-h
