On 8/26/25 10:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +void tdx_cpu_flush_cache_for_kexec(void)
>> +{
>> + lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
>> +
>> + if (!this_cpu_read(cache_state_incoherent))
>> + return;
>> +
> Can you add a comment here to explain why this is done even if the kernel doesn't
> support kexec? I've no objection to the superfluous flushing, but I've spent far
> too much time deciphering old commits where the changelog says one thing and the
> code does something else with no explanation. I don't want to be party to such
> crimes 🙂
You mean as opposed to #ifdef'ing it out?
Looking at the code again, I completely agree in concept. The connection
between TDX, kexec and 'cache_state_incoherent' is totally opaque.
