On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 12:49, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > Marco Elver <el...@google.com> writes: > ... > > > > The choice is between: > > > > 1. ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX (as a matter of fact, the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX patch > > is already in -mm). Perhaps we could optimize it further, by checking > > ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX in buf, and advancing buf like you propose, but I'm > > not sure it's worth worrying about. > > > > 2. The dynamic solution that I proposed that does not use a hard-coded > > '.' (or some variation thereof). > > > > Please tell me which solution you prefer, 1 or 2 -- I'd like to stop > > bikeshedding here. If there's a compelling argument for hard-coding > > the '.' in non-arch code, please clarify, but otherwise I'd like to > > keep arch-specific things out of generic code. > > It's your choice, I was just trying to minimise the size of the wart you > have to carry in kfence code to deal with it. > > The ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX solution is fine by me.
Thank you -- the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX version is already in -mm, so let's keep it. It's purely static vs the other options. Should another debugging tool need something similar we can revisit whether to change or move it. Thanks, -- Marco