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;
References: <20190718032858.28744-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190718032858.28744-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de>
User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
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>,
        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
In-reply-to: <20190718084456.GE24562@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:41:25 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <87d0i747nu.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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
IBM Linux Technology Center