On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:47 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [ Adding Linus, Andrew and Greg as this is something that needs higher
> level of approval for acceptance ]
Is a new config option even needed?
Honestly, I think the "add the module name even when built-in" could
be done unconditionally with no backwards compatibility issues. It's
not a new syntax, and shouldn't break anything, and looks like a
useful extension of the existing format - and one that existing tools
already have to be aware of.
The size thing is obviously different, but I find that much more
questionable. What's the use-case? If it's just about the occasional
big jumps, then adding a dummy entry for those (rare) cases sounds
like a much better option, and wouldn't break any existing code.
I don't see any upside at all in showing the "exact" function size
instead of a size rounded up to the usual 16 bytes or whatever.
Padding is real, and doesn't change anything.
Linus
