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

[Shuah Khan]

On 12/12/22 12:53, John Johansen wrote:
> On 12/12/22 11:48, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > On 12/12/22 12:20, John Johansen wrote:
> > > On 12/12/22 10:03, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > On 12/12/22 10:52, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > > > > Hi David,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/8/22 13:10, John Johansen wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/7/22 18:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > between commits:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    371e50a0b19f ("apparmor: make unpack_array return a trianary value")
> > > > > > >    73c7e91c8bc9 ("apparmor: Remove unnecessary size check when unpacking trans_table")
> > > > > > >    217af7e2f4de ("apparmor: refactor profile rules and attachments")
> > > > > > > (and probably others)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > from the apparmor tree and commit:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > from the kunit-next tree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is somewhat of a mess ... pity there is not a shared branch (or
> > > > > > > better routing if the patches).
> > > > > > sorry, there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding, probably all on me, I
> > > > > > thought the kunit stuff that is conflicting here was going to merge next
> > > > > > cycle.
> > > >
> > > > How about I just drop the following for now and handle this in the next cycle?
> > >
> > > if you want, the other way to handle it is we coordinate our pull requests.
> > > You go first. And then I will submit a little later in the week, with the
> > > references to the merge conflict and a pointer to a branch with it resolved.
> > > This isn't even a particularly tricky merge conflict, it just has the little
> > > subtly around making sure the include symbols are conditional.
> >
> > I assume Linus will not see any problems without your pull requests. In which
> > case we can do this:
> >
> > - I send my pull request today
> > - You can follow with yours with the fixes later on this week
>
> okay
>
> > > This doesn't affect me much as there is already another merge conflict with
> > > the security tree that I need to deal with.
> >
> >
> > > > I think it might be least confusing option. Let me know. I can just do that
> > > > and then send pull request in a day or tow once things settle down in next.
> > > >
> > > > 2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
> > >
> > > that is the other option. If you go that route I can help you do the rebase/merge
> > > fix.
> >
> > Let's go with your earlier suggestion.
>
> ack
>
> > > looking back at this, there wasn't anything explicit about this not going upstream
> > > this cycle, I must have just assumed as the final version came about after rc7. So
> > > my bad.
> >
> > Right - I ended up taking this as it looked like a patch if included could
> > enable other changes to follow without being blocked. Also rc8 was in plan.
>
> yeah, my bad

No worries. Sent pull request with a note about apparmor and our
coordinated pull requests with you on the cc.

thanks,
-- Shuah