On 7/15/19 8:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This looks good to me - if you and Tom are fine with it I'd like to > fold it into his commit so that what I'll send to Linus is bisection > clean. I'm ok with folding it in. Sorry about missing that. Thanks, Tom > >> Note: we still need sev_active() defined because of the reference >> in fs/core/vmcore, but this one is likely to go away soon along >> with the need for an s390 sev_active(). > > Any chance we could not change the return value from the function > at least in this patch/fold as that change seems unrelated to the > dma functionality. If that is what you really wanted and only > the dma code was in the way we can happily merge it as a separate > patch, of couse. >
