On Wed, 2025-08-20 at 22:35 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:22 PM Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think one minor issue here is, when CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_HOST is off but > > CONFIG_KEXEC_CORE is on, there will be no implementation of > > tdx_cpu_flush_cache_for_kexec(). This won't result in build error, > > though, because when TDX_HOST is off, KVM_INTEL_TDX will be off too, i.e., > > there won't be any caller of tdx_cpu_flush_cache_for_kexec(). > > > > But this still doesn't look nice? > > Why do you need one? It's called tdx_cpu_flush_cache_for_kexec(), you > don't need it if TDX is disabled. Sorry I meant the declaration will still be there w/o the function body. > > > Btw, the above will provide the stub function when both KEXEC_CORE and > > TDX_HOST is off, which seems to be a step back too? > > Let's just stop here. Are we really wasting this much time discussing > like 30 characters and 0 bytes of object code? > > > To me, it's more straightforward to just rename it to > > tdx_cpu_flush_cache_for_kexec() and remove the stub: > > Sure, just rename the function and let's call it a day. If it was me, > v6 was good enough. > Thanks for your time Paolo!
