Re: [PATCH v8 15/15] s390/vfio-ap: Add live guest migration chapter to vfio-ap.rst

[Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>]

On 10/9/26 7:53 AM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] doc: vfio-ap: incorrect host reference in destination host configuration section
> --
>
> commit b9b160f01756abd52de1ef4f9e6032ef6704eaea
> Author: Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>
> s390/vfio-ap: Add live guest migration chapter to vfio-ap.rst
>
> Add a 'Live Guest Migration' chapter to the
> Documentation/arch/s390/vfio-ap.rst document to describe the details for
> initiating live guest migration for a guest to which AP adapters, domains
> and control domains have been passed through.
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/s390/vfio-ap.rst b/Documentation/arch/s390/vfio-ap.rst
>> index ac0c07f76ddd7..02d7cbe5e4791 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/arch/s390/vfio-ap.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/arch/s390/vfio-ap.rst
> [ ... ]
>> +  * Display the AP configuration of the destination host with the following
>> +    two commands:
>> +
>> +    .. code-block:: bash
>> +
>> +       lszcrypt -V
>> +       cat /sys/bus/ap/ap_control_domain_mask
>> +
>> +    .. note::
>> +       The ``lszcrypt -V`` command lists the AP cards (adapters) and queue
>> +       devices on the host system; for example:
>> +
>> +       .. code-block:: bash
>> +
>> +          =========== ===== ============ ==========
>> +          CARD.DOMAIN TYPE  MODE         DRIVER
>> +          =========== ===== ============ ==========
>> +          00          CEX5C CCA-Coproc   cex4card
>> +          00.0033     CEX5C CCA-Coproc   vfio_ap
>> +          00.003a     CEX5C CCA-Coproc   vfio_ap
>> +          =========== ===== ============ ==========
>> +
>> +       Each bit in the ap_control_domain_mask corresponds to
>> +       domain numbers 0-255. If a bit is set to one, then
>> +       the control domain is available on the source host. For
>> +       example:
> [Severity: Low]
> Does this mistakenly refer to the "source host" instead of the "destination
> host"?

It should say destination host.

>
> This section appears to be explaining the ap_control_domain_mask of the
> destination host based on the commands above it, which display the
> configuration for the destination host.
>