Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] x86/mm: use INVLPGB for kernel TLB flushes

[Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>]

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.