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

[John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>]

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

> thanks,
> -- Shuah