Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] x86/livepatch: set function alignment to ensure minimal function size

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

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