Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 04:16:31 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com>,
        hsinyi@chromium.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: arm64: pointer_auth.h:40:3: error: implicit declaration of
 function 'get_random_bytes'; did you mean 'get_random_once'?
Message-ID: <20200731021631.GA8247@1wt.eu>
References: <CA+G9fYvSyXnfGmK1FLRtraWWre7QjUoGE_qiwM8XPUBXjnudWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200730211522.1ea3561f@canb.auug.org.au>
 <d23eba90-ee2c-efe0-0cb6-88e99fb22e54@ti.com>
 <CAHk-=whn8OB-QbxpffK=Lhh6Mhj+Y2ALFZ1asCgtnQOnmQgWUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7b0c0f44-f56d-5e71-cf86-dbdea190267a@ti.com>
 <CAHk-=whX7gPBn+jthX8bbfz9kU+0CbYwTxbASwPRCZ1bhVqrOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whX7gPBn+jthX8bbfz9kU+0CbYwTxbASwPRCZ1bhVqrOw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:40:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:05 PM Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI. Below diff seems fixes build:
> 
> Thanks, I'll do that instead, it looks like the right thing to do regardless.
> 
> Mind sending me a sign-off for it (and commit message would be lovely
> too, but I can make something up)? Yeah, it's just a one-liner, but
> let's do this right.

Don't you want to take Mark's patch anyway in addition to all this ? In
case anyone meets yet another build issue, they'd have more luck trying
to revert any other patch. Right now if they revert one, it breaks the
build in a different way and doesn't help much.

Willy