On Fri, 2025-02-14 at 11:55 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> Fair enough. If we don't have a better name, we can at least do:
>
> if (new_bad_name()) {
> new_thing();
> } else {
> old_thing();
> }
>
> My real heartburn is with:
>
> if (new_bad_name()) {
> new_thing();
> } else if (need_thing_1()) {
> old_thing1();
> } else {
> old_thing2();
> }
>
> Where new and old are logically squished together.
>
Do we want to group this code by history, or
by function?
I would argue that new_thing() and old_thing1()
are closer to each other functionally (they both
do remote TLB invalidation) than they are to
old_thing2(), which does local-only invalidation.
I can organize the code however people want,
but I would like a second opinion on this idea :)
--
All Rights Reversed.
