Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Halil Pasic writes:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200
> Christoph Hellwig 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
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?
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
>From 1726205c73fb9e29feaa3d8909c5a1b0f2054c04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 20:50:43 -0300
Subject: [PATCH v4] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
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
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic
---
arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 1 -
arch/s390/mm/init.c | 7 +--
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
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..6c43a1ed1beb 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -156,14 +156,9 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
}
/* 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 */
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Christoph Hellwig 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
Thank you for your review on al these patches.
--
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200
Christoph Hellwig 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
>
> Otherwise looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
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
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
[PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
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
---
arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 1 -
arch/s390/mm/init.c | 8 +---
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
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 */
___
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
