Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c4560ccd-fad4-ecb9-4d57-64d94b5ebf30@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:53:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor
 tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
References: <20221208135327.01364529@canb.auug.org.au>
 <bff89220-df3a-a148-2ba4-6aad3874f322@canonical.com>
 <8e82905f-8bdf-05de-2e6a-d8b896d75910@linuxfoundation.org>
 <0e678eb2-455c-88f5-6732-2e8701ebb6e6@linuxfoundation.org>
 <9b21c055-4e1a-2c34-281c-39af7d73fe80@canonical.com>
 <fa9145fe-9815-900f-6dd0-bf80019a319e@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Organization: Canonical
In-Reply-To: <fa9145fe-9815-900f-6dd0-bf80019a319e@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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