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. cheers