linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the kunit-next tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <05a34f8f-075f-87b0-e13f-898399f480ac@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:56:12 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Patricia Alfonso <trishalfonso@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 kunit-next tree

On 10/14/20 11:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:56:49 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    lib/kunit/test.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    45dcbb6f5ef7 ("kunit: test: add test plan to KUnit TAP format")
>>
>> from the kunit-next tree and commit:
>>
>>    e685acc91080 ("KUnit: KASAN Integration")
>>
>> from the akpm-current tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
>> diff --cc lib/kunit/test.c
>> index de07876b6601,dcc35fd30d95..000000000000
>> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
>> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
>> @@@ -15,11 -16,16 +16,6 @@@
>>    #include "string-stream.h"
>>    #include "try-catch-impl.h"
>>    
>> - static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test)
>>   -static void kunit_print_tap_version(void)
>> --{
>> - 	WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false);
>>   -	static bool kunit_has_printed_tap_version;
>>   -
>>   -	if (!kunit_has_printed_tap_version) {
>>   -		pr_info("TAP version 14\n");
>>   -		kunit_has_printed_tap_version = true;
>>   -	}
>> --}
>> --
>>    /*
>>     * Append formatted message to log, size of which is limited to
>>     * KUNIT_LOG_SIZE bytes (including null terminating byte).
> 
> This is now a conflict between the kunit-next tree and Linus' tree.
> 

Thanks Stephen. I will mention this conflict in my pull request to
Linus.

Thanks,
-- Shuah