On 05.12.2023 16:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:14:57PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.12.2023 16:01, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 01:42:42PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> As for the subject, it's not really about size; the function size is >>>> still going to be small irrespective of the alignment. >>> >>> What about wording it like: >>> >>> x86/livepatch: set function alignment to ensure minimal space between >>> functions >> >> This still wouldn't be right, as there may be no padding at all between >> functions (if they're just the right size). > > But no padding would still be fine given the text above, as then the > minimal space requirement is already meet? > >> Maybe "minimal distance >> between function entry points"? Getting long-ish, though ... > > Oh, I see. You want to explicitly mention the distance is between > function entry points, as otherwise one way to read the subject would > be distance between function end and next function entry point?
Yes, I saw no other way of reading it. IOW ... > It's indeed a bit long for my taste, but I don't mind adjusting if you > think the current wording could cause confusion. ... it already did cause confusion. But maybe we can still think of shrinking the result some ... Jan
