[v3,6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • Remove x86-specific code from generic headers
Related show

Commit Message

Thiago Jung Bauermann July 18, 2019, 3:28 a.m. UTC
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(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig July 18, 2019, 8:44 a.m. UTC | #1
> -/* 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>
Halil Pasic July 18, 2019, 1:01 p.m. UTC | #2
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>
Thiago Jung Bauermann July 18, 2019, 4:41 p.m. UTC | #3
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.
Thiago Jung Bauermann July 18, 2019, 4:43 p.m. UTC | #4
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?

Patch
diff mbox series

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 */