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)
>> > {
>> >
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
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();
> > +
> -/* 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
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
