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

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

Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 11:05:24 -0800
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Harinder Singh <sharinder@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the jc_docs tree

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
>
> between commit:
>
>   6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
>
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
>
>   58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
>
> from the kunit-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as

Thanks for this.

Harinder's patch should supersede my small fixup patch.
It wasn't clear when Harinder's patches would land in the docs tree.

But it looks like my patch two files that Harinder's didn't, specifically:
 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 3 +--
 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst  | 3 +--

Shuah, Brendan: I can send a new version of 58b391d74630 that only
updates those two files, if wanted.
Or we can go with Stephen's fix, which looks good to me.

> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell