Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:56:52AM GMT, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:28:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   ece207a83e46 ("rust: kernel: sort Rust modules")
> > 
> > from the rust-fixes tree and commit:
> > 
> >   94d356c0335f ("rust: security: add abstraction for secctx")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner 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 rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > index b5f4b3ce6b48,ff7d88022c57..000000000000
> > --- a/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > @@@ -44,8 -46,9 +46,9 @@@ pub mod net
> >   pub mod page;
> >   pub mod prelude;
> >   pub mod print;
> >  -pub mod sizes;
> >   pub mod rbtree;
> > + pub mod security;
> >  +pub mod sizes;
> >   mod static_assert;
> >   #[doc(hidden)]
> >   pub mod std_vendor;
> 
> This is now a conflict between the vfs-brauner tree and Linus' tree.

I rebased the rust bindings onto v6.12-rc2. So this conflict will go away.