Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211008152930.03787395@canb.auug.org.au> <ba01fb13-e1a1-299e-9a7b-ccdeaeef267a@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <ba01fb13-e1a1-299e-9a7b-ccdeaeef267a@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:03:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45g91ZadTJrU3oE+VHxZ_2kgDnZm0uyTiaxR+bP=qg9fA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the
 kunit-fixes tree
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 9:31 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/7/21 10:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >    d8c23ead708b ("kunit: tool: better handling of quasi-bool args (--json, --raw_output)")
> >
> > from the kunit-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >    6710951ee039 ("kunit: tool: support running each suite/test separately")
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Thank you for the fixing it up. I will fix this up in the kunit-next once
> the kunit-fixes pull request goes out.

Thanks for taking care of this everyone.

Daniel, can you double check the merge conflict to make sure it is
done correctly?