From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:59:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [PATCH RFC] ARM: option for loading modules into vmalloc area In-Reply-To: <20141119165517.GL4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20141118173413.GB4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <546B8C64.3010904@samsung.com> <2041617.Kxhx5O4MMr@wuerfel> <20141119160747.GH4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20141119165517.GL4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 05:38:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Numbers are disambiguated by the f and b suffixes, so they can be > > reused in the same .s file. So as long as you use a strictly numerical > > prefix, you can deal correctly with the case where, for instance, > > do_div() is called twice in the same compilation unit, and still not > > clash with other inline asm > > What's not particularly nice though is to hide these in a macro, > which itself may be part of a larger macro or code fragment also > using small numbers. > > We probably ought to be a bit more inteligent about how we choose > these numbers inside macros, rather than just randomly picking some > and hoping that they don't clash. Maybe in this case, the macro content is so simple that labels are not warranted? Getting away without them certainly solves the issue. Nicolas