On 01/17/2018 12:33 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> #define ECB_GS 0x40
>> #define ECB_TE 0x10
>> #define ECB_SRSI0x04
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> index 38535a57..20b9e9f 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/i
> #define ECB_GS 0x40
> #define ECB_TE 0x10
> #define ECB_SRSI 0x04
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 38535a57..20b9e9f 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/
On 17/01/2018 12:29, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> The problem is not that I announce the facility, I in fact announce that the
>> programmatic interface is available (the sebc sync reg and the usage of that
>> field).
>> (So the CAP is part of this patch to have both in lockstep)
>> A non-exist
On 01/17/2018 12:28 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> On 01/17/2018 12:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> 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
On 01/17/2018 12:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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 b
Paolo,
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.
Christian
On 01/17/2018 10:48 AM, Martin Schwidefs
7 matches
Mail list logo
