[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190718150123.4230a00c.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:01:23 +0200
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>, 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>,
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>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....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@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> Otherwise looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists