On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 02:03:36AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > 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 for putting my feelings into such concise words.
