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. > 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. Paolo
