Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

[Timur Tabi]

On 2/10/21 10:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Now the question is, why do you need the unhashed pointer?
>
> Currently, the instruction pointer is what is fine right? You get the
> a function and its offset. If there's something that is needed, perhaps we
> should look at how to fix that, instead of just unhashing all pointers by
> default.

The original version of this patch only fixed print_hex_dump(), because 
hashed addresses didn't make any sense for that.  Each address is 
incremented by 16 or 32, but since they were all hashed, they may as 
well have been random numbers.