arm64 allmodconfig failure in expansion of macro ‘_X’

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:09:44AM +0100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:08:05AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > arm64 allmodconfig fails to build with mainline due to the following:
> > 
> > 
> >   In file included from include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h:74:0,
> >                    from include/acpi/platform/acenv.h:173,
> >                    from include/acpi/acpi.h:56,
> >                    from include/linux/acpi.h:37,
> >                    from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h:21,
> >                    from include/linux/dma-mapping.h:86,
> >                    from include/linux/skbuff.h:34,
> >                    from include/crypto/algapi.h:18,
> >                    from crypto/asymmetric_keys/rsa.c:16:
> >   include/linux/ctype.h:15:12: error: expected ?;?, ?,? or ?)? before numeric constant
> >    #define _X 0x40 /* hex digit */
> >               ^
> >   crypto/asymmetric_keys/rsa.c:123:47: note: in expansion of macro ?_X?
> >    static int RSA_I2OSP(MPI x, size_t xLen, u8 **_X)
> >                                                  ^
> >   crypto/asymmetric_keys/rsa.c: In function ?RSA_verify_signature?:
> >   crypto/asymmetric_keys/rsa.c:256:2: error: implicit declaration of function ?RSA_I2OSP? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >     ret = RSA_I2OSP(m, k, &EM);
> > 
> > 
> > This is thanks to the following function type:
> > 
> >   static int RSA_I2OSP(MPI x, size_t xLen, u8 **__X)
> > 
> > conflicting with the _X #define in linux/ctype.h:
> > 
> >   #define _X      0x40    /* hex digit */
> > 
> > Simple patch below, but solving this problem with more underscores feels
> > slightly inhumane.
> 
> Thanks but I've already merged a similar patch yesterday.

Perfect, sorry for the noise.

Will