On 23/09/20 19:04, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> Two of the three instances are a bit different though. What about this >> which at least shortens the comment to 2 fewer lines: > Any objection to changing those to "Flush (on non-coherent CPUs)"? I agree > it would be helpful to call out the details, especially for DBG_*, but I > don't like that it reads as if the flush is unconditional. Hmm... It's already fairly long lines so that would wrap to 3 lines, and the reference to the conditional flush wasn't there before either. sev_clflush_pages could be a better place to mention that (or perhaps it's self-explanatory). Paolo
