From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
> -/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
> -bool sev_active(void)
> -{
> - return is_prot_virt_guest();
> -}
> -
> bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> {
> - return sev_active();
> + return is_prot_virt_guest();
> }
Do we want to keep the comment for force_dma_unencrypted?
Otherwise looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
> -/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
> -bool sev_active(void)
> -{
> - return is_prot_virt_guest();
> -}
> -
> bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> {
> - return sev_active();
> + return is_prot_virt_guest();
> }
Do we want to keep the comment for force_dma_unencrypted?
Otherwise looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
> -/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
> -bool sev_active(void)
> -{
> - return is_prot_virt_guest();
> -}
> -
> bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
> {
> - return sev_active();
> + return is_prot_virt_guest();
> }
Do we want to keep the comment for force_dma_unencrypted?
Otherwise looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-18 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-18 3:28 [PATCH v3 0/6] Remove x86-specific code from generic headers Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] x86,s390: " Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] swiotlb: Remove call to sme_active() Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] dma-mapping: Remove dma_check_mask() Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:29 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:29 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:29 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] x86,s390/mm: " Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] x86, s390/mm: " Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:42 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] x86,s390/mm: " Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] fs/core/vmcore: Move sev_active() reference to x86 arch code Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 17:47 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:47 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:47 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-19 4:59 ` lijiang
2019-07-19 4:59 ` lijiang
2019-07-19 4:59 ` lijiang
2019-07-19 15:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:47 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 3:28 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-07-18 13:01 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-18 13:01 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-18 13:01 ` Halil Pasic
2019-07-18 16:43 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 16:43 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 16:43 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 16:41 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 16:41 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 16:41 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 17:48 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] Remove x86-specific code from generic headers Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:48 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 17:48 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-18 19:44 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 19:44 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 19:44 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-18 19:44 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 13:12 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-19 13:12 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-19 13:12 ` Lendacky, Thomas
2019-07-19 15:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2019-07-19 15:45 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=andmike@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bauerman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.