* Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Also, 'function_offset_within_entry' is way too long a name, and it's also > > a > > minomer I think. The purpose of this function is to enforce that the > > relative > > 'offset' of a new probe is at the standard function entry offset: i.e. 0 on > > most > > architectures, and some ABI dependent constant on PowerPC, right? > > > > That's not at all clear from that name, plus it's a global namespace > > symbol, yet > > has no 'kprobes' prefix. So it should be named something like > > 'kprobe_offset_valid()' or such, with an arch_kprobe_offset_valid() > > counterpart. > > Hmm, I would rather like kprobe_within_entry(), since offset != 0 is > actually valid for normal kprobe, that is kretprobe and jprobe limitation.
But what entry? That it's within a range or that offset is always 0 is really an implementational detail: depending on what type of kprobe it is, it is either validly within the confines of the specified function symbol or not. What _really_ matters to callers is whether it's a valid kprobe to be inserted into that function, right? I.e. the long name came from over-specifying what is done by the function - while simplifying makes it actually more meaningful to read. Thanks, Ingo