linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  tools/testing/selftests/clone3/clone3.c

between commit:

  fc7f04dc23db ("selftests/clone3: Fix broken test under !CONFIG_TIME_NS")

from the mm-hotfixes tree and commit:

  34dce23f7e40 ("selftests/clone3: Report descriptive test names")

from the kselftest tree.

I fixed it up (I used this files form the latter commit) 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 kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Shuah Khan]

On 10/18/23 23:33, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    tools/testing/selftests/clone3/clone3.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    fc7f04dc23db ("selftests/clone3: Fix broken test under !CONFIG_TIME_NS")
> 
> from the mm-hotfixes tree and commit:
> 
>    34dce23f7e40 ("selftests/clone3: Report descriptive test names")
> 
> from the kselftest tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used this files form the latter commit) 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 Stephen.

I can rebase linux-kselftest next to pick up the following once it goes
into Linus's tree.

fc7f04dc23db ("selftests/clone3: Fix broken test under !CONFIG_TIME_NS")

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 08:49:24AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/18/23 23:33, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > I fixed it up (I used this files form the latter commit) 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.

That'll drop the fix that Tiezhu did which is a good one.

> I can rebase linux-kselftest next to pick up the following once it goes
> into Linus's tree.

I've got the rebase/rework locally (I did it as a new commit which isn't
ideal but it's such a complete conflict that it felt like the best
option).  Assuming nothing blows up in my local CI I should send it out
later today.

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 997 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:33:10 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/clone3/clone3.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   fc7f04dc23db ("selftests/clone3: Fix broken test under !CONFIG_TIME_NS")
> 
> from the mm-hotfixes tree and commit:
> 
>   34dce23f7e40 ("selftests/clone3: Report descriptive test names")
> 
> from the kselftest tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used this file from the latter commit) and can carry the
> fix as necessary. This is now fxed 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 mm-hotfixes tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Shuah Khan]

On 8/22/23 22:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>    fbf31ed6e0f4 ("selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability")
>    8d55633e168b ("selftests: cachestat: catch failing fsync test on tmpfs")
> 
> from the mm-hotfixes tree and commit:
> 
>    13eb52f6293d ("selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability")
> 
> from the kselftest tree.
> 

Thank you Stephen.

Andrew, I will drop the following from kselftest next.

13eb52f6293d ("selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability")

thanks,
-- Shuah

linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the mm-hotfixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c

between commits:

  fbf31ed6e0f4 ("selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability")
  8d55633e168b ("selftests: cachestat: catch failing fsync test on tmpfs")

from the mm-hotfixes tree and commit:

  13eb52f6293d ("selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability")

from the kselftest tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former version of the conflicting bits)
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 --]