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 <bauerman@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190806044919.10622-7-bauerman@linux.ibm.com
This commit is contained in:
parent
ae7eb82a92
commit
5cbdaeefb6
@ -5,7 +5,6 @@
|
|||||||
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
|
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
static inline bool mem_encrypt_active(void) { return false; }
|
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_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
|
||||||
int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
|
int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
|
||||||
|
@ -156,14 +156,9 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
|
|||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
|
/* are we a protected virtualization guest? */
|
||||||
bool sev_active(void)
|
|
||||||
{
|
|
||||||
return is_prot_virt_guest();
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
|
bool force_dma_unencrypted(struct device *dev)
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
return sev_active();
|
return is_prot_virt_guest();
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/* protected virtualization */
|
/* protected virtualization */
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user