[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <937031.1760789846@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2025 13:17:26 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
"Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
Holger Dengler <dengler@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/17] s390/sha3: Rename conflicting functions
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
> Le 17/10/2025 à 16:42, David Howells a écrit :
> > Rename the s390 sha3_* functions to have an "s390_" prefix to avoid
> > conflict with generic code.
>
> The functions are static, why would they conflict with generic code ?
Because of #include <crypto/sha3.h>
> Also generic code doesn't have such functions at the moment, are they added by
> a follow patch ?
Yes. See patch 3.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists