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: <a116990c-f544-9dce-0ee5-ab7fbe2601ca@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 16:19:00 -0700
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:     John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        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>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
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>
 <c4560ccd-fad4-ecb9-4d57-64d94b5ebf30@canonical.com>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <c4560ccd-fad4-ecb9-4d57-64d94b5ebf30@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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