From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: References: <20190712053631.9814-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190712053631.9814-3-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] DMA mapping: Move SME handling to x86-specific files In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:47:09 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <878ssv3z2a.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner 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, Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Christoph Hellwig , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Alexey Dobriyan , Halil Pasic , Mike Anderson , Ram Pai Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h >> index b310a9c18113..f2e399fb626b 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h >> +++ b/include/linux/mem_encrypt.h >> @@ -21,23 +21,11 @@ >> >> #else /* !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT */ >> >> -#define sme_me_mask 0ULL >> - >> -static inline bool sme_active(void) { return false; } >> static inline bool sev_active(void) { return false; } > > You want to move out sev_active as well, the only relevant thing is > mem_encrypt_active(). Everything SME/SEV is an architecture detail. I'm sure you saw it. I addressed sev_active in a separate patch. Thanks for reviewing this series! >> +static inline bool mem_encrypt_active(void) { return false; } > > Thanks, > > tglx -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center