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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 09:13:52 +1000

Hi all,

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:55:40 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d86d1652ab13 ("apparmor: test: Remove some casts which are no-longer required")
> 
> from the apparmor tree and commit:
> 
>   5f91bd9f1e7a ("apparmor: test: Use NULL macros")
> 
> 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 security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> index 399dce3781aa,5c18d2f19862..000000000000
> --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> @@@ -408,8 -408,8 +408,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u
>   
>   	size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>   
>  -	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
>  +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
> - 	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
> + 	KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, chunk);
>   	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->end - 1);
>   }
>   
> @@@ -430,8 -430,8 +430,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u
>   
>   	size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>   
>  -	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
>  +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
> - 	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
> + 	KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, chunk);
>   	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->start + TEST_U16_OFFSET);
>   }
>   

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

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell