Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:44:56 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function
Message-ID: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de>
References: <20190718032858.28744-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> -/* 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>