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

[Nadav Amit]

> On Feb 11, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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?

Is there any comment over static_cpu_has()? ;-)

Anyhow, obviously a comment would be useful.