linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Hi all,

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

  rust/kernel/lib.rs

between commit:

  ece207a83e46 ("rust: kernel: sort Rust modules")

from the rust-fixes tree and commit:

  94d356c0335f ("rust: security: add abstraction for secctx")

from the vfs-brauner 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 rust/kernel/lib.rs
index b5f4b3ce6b48,ff7d88022c57..000000000000
--- a/rust/kernel/lib.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
@@@ -44,8 -46,9 +46,9 @@@ pub mod net
  pub mod page;
  pub mod prelude;
  pub mod print;
 -pub mod sizes;
  pub mod rbtree;
+ pub mod security;
 +pub mod sizes;
  mod static_assert;
  #[doc(hidden)]
  pub mod std_vendor;

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Hi all,

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:28:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   rust/kernel/lib.rs
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ece207a83e46 ("rust: kernel: sort Rust modules")
> 
> from the rust-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   94d356c0335f ("rust: security: add abstraction for secctx")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner 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 rust/kernel/lib.rs
> index b5f4b3ce6b48,ff7d88022c57..000000000000
> --- a/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> @@@ -44,8 -46,9 +46,9 @@@ pub mod net
>   pub mod page;
>   pub mod prelude;
>   pub mod print;
>  -pub mod sizes;
>   pub mod rbtree;
> + pub mod security;
>  +pub mod sizes;
>   mod static_assert;
>   #[doc(hidden)]
>   pub mod std_vendor;

This is now a conflict between the vfs-brauner tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

Posted by Christian Brauner 1 month, 2 weeks ago

On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:56:52AM GMT, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:28:39 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   ece207a83e46 ("rust: kernel: sort Rust modules")
> > 
> > from the rust-fixes tree and commit:
> > 
> >   94d356c0335f ("rust: security: add abstraction for secctx")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner 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 rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > index b5f4b3ce6b48,ff7d88022c57..000000000000
> > --- a/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > +++ b/rust/kernel/lib.rs
> > @@@ -44,8 -46,9 +46,9 @@@ pub mod net
> >   pub mod page;
> >   pub mod prelude;
> >   pub mod print;
> >  -pub mod sizes;
> >   pub mod rbtree;
> > + pub mod security;
> >  +pub mod sizes;
> >   mod static_assert;
> >   #[doc(hidden)]
> >   pub mod std_vendor;
> 
> This is now a conflict between the vfs-brauner tree and Linus' tree.

I rebased the rust bindings onto v6.12-rc2. So this conflict will go away.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

Posted by Miguel Ojeda 1 month, 2 weeks ago

On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 2:39 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I rebased the rust bindings onto v6.12-rc2. So this conflict will go away.

We are moving `AlwaysRefCounted` in `rust-next`, and the new code in
your branch uses it, so `next-20241008` does not build.

I can add a temporary re-export that we can clean up later on our
side, or I can drop the move for another time (it is not a big deal),
or we can put your branch on top of / into `rust-next`.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the rust-fixes tree

Posted by Miguel Ojeda 1 month, 4 weeks ago

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:28 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   rust/kernel/lib.rs

Looks good to me -- thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel