On 2/9/23 08:23, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I have no strong preference one way or the other, but given that
> apm_32.c is not the epicenter of new development, and the call from
> EFI code is self-documenting already ('
> ibt_save(efi_disable_ibt_for_runtime)', I'm inclined to just queue the
> patch as-is, and leave it to whoever feels inclined to spend more free
> time on this to come up with some nice polish to put on top.
>
> Unless anyone minds?
No objections from the x86 side.
