On 25.05.2022 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 08:02:17AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.05.2022 18:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> Would you be fine with adding: >>> >>> Note that FLUSH_FORCE_IPI doesn't need to be handled explicitly, as >>> it's main purpose is to prevent the usage of the hypervisor assisted >>> flush if available, not to force the sending of an IPI even for cases >>> where it won't be sent. >> >> Hmm, yes, that's even more verbose than I would have expected it to >> be. Just one point: I'm not sure about "main" there. Is there really >> another purpose? > > Right, I should remove main. > >> Of course an alternative would be to rename the flag to properly >> express what it's for (e.g. FLUSH_NO_HV_ASSIST). This would then >> eliminate the need for a comment, afaic at least. > > I think it's likely that we also require this flag if we make use of > hardware assisted flushes in the future, and hence it would better > stay with the current name to avoid renaming in the future. > > Whether the avoidance of sending the IPI is due to hardware or > hypervisor assistance is of no interest to the caller, it only cares > to force a real IPI to be sent to remote processors.
Well, then it could still be named FLUSH_NO_ASSIST, since as said (and as you look to agree with) there's no IPI being forced in the general case. Jan
