> But other other point is adding more cache flushing variants should not > be easy. Everyone should be using the standardize version. If it's not > implemented in hardware despite having ratified extensions you can fake > it up in SBI. Yes, that's way more expensive than indirect calls, but > that's what you get for taping out new hardware that ignores the actual > architecture specification and just does their own made up shit. FWIW, ALTERNATIVE_X() for "three instructions with (what should be a) crystal-clear semantics" already smells like "we're doing it wrong" to me, function pointers would be closer to "we're looking for trouble". Thanks, Andrea
