On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:12:21 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 11/21/19 1:59 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:43:23 -0500
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Let's sync all the protvirt header changes
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  linux-headers/asm-s390/kvm.h |  3 ++-
> >>  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h    | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>  
> >   
> >> diff --git a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> >> index 18892d6541..d031051601 100644
> >> --- a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> >> @@ -995,6 +995,8 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
> >>  #define KVM_CAP_ARM_SVE 170
> >>  #define KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS 171
> >>  #define KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC 172
> >> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED 180
> >> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS 181  
> > 
> > Hm, where does this cap come from? I did not see it in the kernel
> > patches.  
> 
> It'll be part of the V1 once I send it out.
> Pierre found the problem while reviewing QEMU, so I fixed it in both repos.

Ok, that cap probably makes sense. It was just surprising to find :)