Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:02:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>,
        Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@arista.com>,
        Salam Noureddine <noureddine@arista.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the crypto tree
Message-ID: <20231030150243.0e66ba73@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZT896a2j3hUI1NF+@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20231030155809.6b47288c@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20231030160953.28f2df61@canb.auug.org.au>
        <ZT896a2j3hUI1NF+@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:23:53 +0800 Herbert Xu wrote:
> If we simply apply this patch to the netdev tree then everything
> should work at the next merge window.  But perhaps you could change
> the patch description to say something like remove the obsolete
> crypto_hash_alignmask.  It's not important though.

I'm happy to massage the commit message and apply the fix to net.
But is it actually 100% correct to do that? IOW is calling
crypto_ahash_alignmask() already not necessary in net-next or does
it only become unnecessary after some prep work in crypto-next?

We can tell Linus to squash this fix into the merge of either
crypto-next or net-next, I'm pretty sure he'd be okay with that..