On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:29:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:11:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > There's definiltely breakage with that module_writable_address()
> > nonsense in alternative.c that will not be fixed by that patch.
> >
> > The very simplest thing at this point is to remove:
> >
> > select ARCH_HAS_EXECMEM_ROX if X86_64
> >
> > and try again next cycle.
>
> Boris asked I send it as a proper patch, so here goes. Perhaps next time
> let x86 merge x86 code :/
I just love it how this went in without a single x86 maintainer Ack, it broke
a bunch of things and then it is still there instead of getting reverted.
Let's not do this again please.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
