[PATCH v4 6/6] s390/mm: Remove sev_active() function

[Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h | 1 -
 arch/s390/mm/init.c                 | 7 +------
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
index ff813a56bc30..2542cbf7e2d1 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h
@@ -5,7 +5,6 @@
 #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
 
 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_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages);
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/init.c b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
index 20340a03ad90..a124f19f7b3c 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/init.c
@@ -156,14 +156,9 @@ int set_memory_decrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
 }
 
 /* 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();
 }
 
 /* protected virtualization */