On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:03:49PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 07/11/2019 14:37, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > Given that this gets run on all individual CPUs, via unmap_kernel_at_el0()
> > > and the decision of choosing KPTI is affected by the lack of the E0PD feature
> > > when it is helpful, having CPU local check is fine. Also this gives us the
> > > advantage of choosing an nG mapping when the boot CPU indicates the need.

> > Well, it's mainly the fact that this runs really early on in boot before
> > the cpufeature code has fully initialized so as with the existing code
> > immediately below for identifying TX1 we can't rely on the cpufeature
> > code being done.

> Yes, I acknowledge that. I was writing it down to clear why this was
> fine and why it has its own advantage. This may not be obvious for
> someone who reads it later. So having this in a comment helps to
> avoid staring at it.

Yes...  my point was more about idiom and urgency, especially given that
this code is moved later in the patch series.