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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > 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
