| Message ID | 20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Remove x86-specific code from generic headers | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | warning | Failed to apply on branch next (f5c20693d8edcd665f1159dc941b9e7f87c17647) |
| snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | fail | Failed to apply to any branch |
> -/* 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>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> 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 <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > > Otherwise looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes: >> -/* 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> Thank you for your review on al these patches.
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200 > Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> 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 <pasic@linux.ibm.com> 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?
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..6286eb3e815b 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c @@ -155,15 +155,9 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages) return 0; } -/* 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 */
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 <bauerman@linux.ibm.com> --- arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 1 - arch/s390/mm/init.c | 8 +------- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)