mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-12-04 09:34:12 +08:00
x86/mem_encrypt: Unbreak the AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n build
Moving mem_encrypt_init() broke the AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT=n because the declaration of that function was under #ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT and the obvious placement for the inline stub was the #else path. This is a leftover of commit20f07a044a
("x86/sev: Move common memory encryption code to mem_encrypt.c") which made mem_encrypt_init() depend on X86_MEM_ENCRYPT without moving the prototype. That did not fail back then because there was no stub inline as the core init code had a weak function. Move both the declaration and the stub out of the CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT section and guard it with CONFIG_X86_MEM_ENCRYPT. Fixes:439e17576e
("init, x86: Move mem_encrypt_init() into arch_cpu_finalize_init()") Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202306170247.eQtCJPE8-lkp@intel.com/
This commit is contained in:
parent
b81fac906a
commit
0a9567ac5e
@ -17,6 +17,12 @@
|
||||
|
||||
#include <asm/bootparam.h>
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_MEM_ENCRYPT
|
||||
void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
|
||||
#else
|
||||
static inline void mem_encrypt_init(void) { }
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT
|
||||
|
||||
extern u64 sme_me_mask;
|
||||
@ -51,8 +57,6 @@ void __init mem_encrypt_free_decrypted_mem(void);
|
||||
|
||||
void __init sev_es_init_vc_handling(void);
|
||||
|
||||
void __init mem_encrypt_init(void);
|
||||
|
||||
#define __bss_decrypted __section(".bss..decrypted")
|
||||
|
||||
#else /* !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
|
||||
@ -85,8 +89,6 @@ early_set_mem_enc_dec_hypercall(unsigned long vaddr, int npages, bool enc) {}
|
||||
|
||||
static inline void mem_encrypt_free_decrypted_mem(void) { }
|
||||
|
||||
static inline void mem_encrypt_init(void) { }
|
||||
|
||||
#define __bss_decrypted
|
||||
|
||||
#endif /* CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user