linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the jc_docs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the jc_docs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2464 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst

between commit:

  c48b9ef1f794 ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite getting started")

from the jc_docs tree and commit:

  4c2911f1e140 ("kunit: tool: reconfigure when the used kunitconfig changes")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
index a858ab009944,0a5e65540974..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
@@@ -59,19 -44,23 +59,20 @@@ or ``VFAT_FS``. To run ``FAT_KUNIT_TEST
  
  	CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST=y
  
 -:doc:`kunit_tool <kunit-tool>` will ensure that all config options set in
 -``.kunitconfig`` are set in the kernel ``.config`` before running the tests.
 -It'll warn you if you haven't included the dependencies of the options you're
 -using.
 +Before running the tests, kunit_tool ensures that all config options
 +set in ``.kunitconfig`` are set in the kernel ``.config``. It will warn
 +you if you have not included dependencies for the options used.
  
- .. note ::
-    The configuration is only updated if the ``.kunitconfig`` is not a
-    subset of ``.config``. You can use tools (for example:
-    make menuconfig) to adjust other config options.
+ .. note::
+    If you change the ``.kunitconfig``, kunit.py will trigger a rebuild of the
+    ``.config`` file. But you can edit the ``.config`` file directly or with
+    tools like ``make menuconfig O=.kunit``. As long as its a superset of
+    ``.kunitconfig``, kunit.py won't overwrite your changes.
  
 -
 -Running the tests (KUnit Wrapper)
 ----------------------------------
 -
 -To make sure that everything is set up correctly, simply invoke the Python
 -wrapper from your kernel repo:
 +Running Tests (KUnit Wrapper)
 +-----------------------------
 +1. To make sure that everything is set up correctly, invoke the Python
 +   wrapper from your kernel repository:
  
  .. code-block:: bash
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2742 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:37:07 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c48b9ef1f794 ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite getting started")
> 
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
> 
>   4c2911f1e140 ("kunit: tool: reconfigure when the used kunitconfig changes")
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> index a858ab009944,0a5e65540974..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> @@@ -59,19 -44,23 +59,20 @@@ or ``VFAT_FS``. To run ``FAT_KUNIT_TEST
>   
>   	CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST=y
>   
>  -:doc:`kunit_tool <kunit-tool>` will ensure that all config options set in
>  -``.kunitconfig`` are set in the kernel ``.config`` before running the tests.
>  -It'll warn you if you haven't included the dependencies of the options you're
>  -using.
>  +Before running the tests, kunit_tool ensures that all config options
>  +set in ``.kunitconfig`` are set in the kernel ``.config``. It will warn
>  +you if you have not included dependencies for the options used.
>   
> - .. note ::
> -    The configuration is only updated if the ``.kunitconfig`` is not a
> -    subset of ``.config``. You can use tools (for example:
> -    make menuconfig) to adjust other config options.
> + .. note::
> +    If you change the ``.kunitconfig``, kunit.py will trigger a rebuild of the
> +    ``.config`` file. But you can edit the ``.config`` file directly or with
> +    tools like ``make menuconfig O=.kunit``. As long as its a superset of
> +    ``.kunitconfig``, kunit.py won't overwrite your changes.
>   
>  -
>  -Running the tests (KUnit Wrapper)
>  ----------------------------------
>  -
>  -To make sure that everything is set up correctly, simply invoke the Python
>  -wrapper from your kernel repo:
>  +Running Tests (KUnit Wrapper)
>  +-----------------------------
>  +1. To make sure that everything is set up correctly, invoke the Python
>  +   wrapper from your kernel repository:
>   
>   .. code-block:: bash
>   

This is now a conflict between the jc_docs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the jc_docs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 795 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst

between commit:

  6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")

from the jc_docs tree and commit:

  58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")

from the kunit-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former version) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Daniel Latypov]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
>
> between commit:
>
>   6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
>
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
>
>   58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
>
> from the kunit-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as

Thanks for this.

Harinder's patch should supersede my small fixup patch.
It wasn't clear when Harinder's patches would land in the docs tree.

But it looks like my patch two files that Harinder's didn't, specifically:
 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 3 +--
 Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst  | 3 +--

Shuah, Brendan: I can send a new version of 58b391d74630 that only
updates those two files, if wanted.
Or we can go with Stephen's fix, which looks good to me.

> 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

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

[Brendan Higgins]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:05 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
> >
> > from the jc_docs tree and commit:
> >
> >   58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
> >
> > from the kunit-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Harinder's patch should supersede my small fixup patch.
> It wasn't clear when Harinder's patches would land in the docs tree.
>
> But it looks like my patch two files that Harinder's didn't, specifically:
>  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 3 +--
>  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst  | 3 +--
>
> Shuah, Brendan: I can send a new version of 58b391d74630 that only
> updates those two files, if wanted.
> Or we can go with Stephen's fix, which looks good to me.

I'm fine with Stephen's fix, and I am assuming that is the direction
that we already went - so probably the least likely to make waves.

So looks good to me.

Sorry about the delayed response. I was on vacation.

Cheers!

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:32:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
> 
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
> 
>   58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
> 
> from the kunit-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the former version) 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.

This is now a conflict between the jc_docs tree and Linus' tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]