Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09:25AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> It is just that I find the use of static_cpu_has()/boot_cpu_has() to be very
> inconsistent. I doubt that show_cpuinfo_misc(), copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(),
> or i915_memcpy_init_early() that use static_cpu_has() are any hotter than
> text_poke_early().

Would some beefing of the comment over it help?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.