[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250708110852-85b541be-7e1d-4cbc-a455-9cbef4c15b3d@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 11:12:00 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Marie Zhussupova <marievic@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the uml tree
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 06:15:39PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> lib/kunit/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
> 013c51446570 ("kunit: Enable PCI on UML without triggering WARN()")
>
> from the uml tree and commit:
>
> 5ac244b9cc8f ("kunit: Make default kunit_test timeout configurable via both a module parameter and a Kconfig option")
>
> from the kunit-next 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.
The resolution looks good to me, thanks.
Johannes:
I expected my patch to get picked up through the KUnit tree.
If you drop it, a Reviewed-by on the patch would be very welcome, though.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists