From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:38242 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388249AbfGRQnx (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:43:53 -0400 References: <20190718032858.28744-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de> <20190718150123.4230a00c.pasic@linux.ibm.com> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function In-reply-to: <20190718150123.4230a00c.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:43:20 -0300 Message-ID: <87blxr47kn.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Halil Pasic Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 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 , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Marek Szyprowski , Robin Murphy , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Alexey Dobriyan , Thomas Lendacky , Mike Anderson , Ram Pai Halil Pasic writes: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> > -/* 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? > > Yes we do. With the comment transferred: > > Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic Thanks for your review. Here is the new version. Should I send a new patch series with this patch and the Reviewed-by on the other ones? -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center >From 1726205c73fb9e29feaa3d8909c5a1b0f2054c04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:50:43 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v4] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function All references to sev_active() were moved to arch/x86 so we don't need to define it for s390 anymore. Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic --- arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 1 - arch/s390/mm/init.c | 7 +------ 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h index ff813a56bc30..2542cbf7e2d1 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h @@ -5,7 +5,6 @@ #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ static inline bool mem_encrypt_active(void) { return false; } -extern bool sev_active(void); int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages); int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages); diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c index 78c319c5ce48..6c43a1ed1beb 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c @@ -156,14 +156,9 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages) } /* 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(); } /* protected virtualization */