linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the kunit-fixes 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:49:41 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the
 kunit-fixes tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:

  lib/kunit/test.c

between commit:

  db105c37a4d6 ("kunit: Export kunit_running()")

from the kunit-fixes tree and commit:

  cc3ed2fe5c93 ("kunit: Add "hooks" to call into KUnit when it's built as a module")

from the kunit-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter incorporated the former) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped