[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200319174254.GE13073@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:42:54 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] treewide: Rename "unencrypted" to "decrypted"
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> TBH, I don't see how
>
> if (force_dma_decrypted(dev))
> set_memory_encrypted((unsigned long)cpu_addr, 1 << page_order);
>
> makes more sense than the above. It's both non-sensical unless there is
9087c37584fb ("dma-direct: Force unencrypted DMA under SME for certain DMA masks")
> a big fat comment explaining what this is about.
ACK to that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists