[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
> -/* 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@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists