linux-next: manual merge of the paulmck tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months, 1 week ago

Hi all,

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

  lib/Kconfig.debug

between commit:

  c2d288f7ab13 ("kho: add test for kexec handover")

from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:

  d19e9fa61f60 ("lib: Add trivial kunit test for ratelimit")

from the paulmck 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 lib/Kconfig.debug
index 54f11c2713b9,d69d27f80834..000000000000
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@@ -3235,27 -3225,17 +3235,38 @@@ config TEST_OBJPOO
  
  	  If unsure, say N.
  
 +config TEST_KEXEC_HANDOVER
 +	bool "Test for Kexec HandOver"
 +	default n
 +	depends on KEXEC_HANDOVER
 +	help
 +	  This option enables test for Kexec HandOver (KHO).
 +	  The test consists of two parts: saving kernel data before kexec and
 +	  restoring the data after kexec and verifying that it was properly
 +	  handed over. This test module creates and saves data on the boot of
 +	  the first kernel and restores and verifies the data on the boot of
 +	  kexec'ed kernel.
 +
 +	  For detailed documentation about KHO, see Documentation/core-api/kho.
 +
 +	  To run the test run:
 +
 +	  tools/testing/selftests/kho/vmtest.sh -h
 +
 +	  If unsure, say N.
 +
 +
+ config RATELIMIT_KUNIT_TEST
+ 	tristate "KUnit Test for correctness and stress of ratelimit" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ 	depends on KUNIT
+ 	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+ 	help
+ 	  This builds the "test_ratelimit" module that should be used
+ 	  for correctness verification and concurrent testings of rate
+ 	  limiting.
+ 
+ 	  If unsure, say N.
+ 
  config INT_POW_KUNIT_TEST
  	tristate "Integer exponentiation (int_pow) test" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
  	depends on KUNIT

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the paulmck tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months ago

Hi all,

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:42:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the paulmck tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   lib/Kconfig.debug
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c2d288f7ab13 ("kho: add test for kexec handover")
> 
> from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   d19e9fa61f60 ("lib: Add trivial kunit test for ratelimit")
> 
> from the paulmck 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 lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 54f11c2713b9,d69d27f80834..000000000000
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@@ -3235,27 -3225,17 +3235,38 @@@ config TEST_OBJPOO
>   
>   	  If unsure, say N.
>   
>  +config TEST_KEXEC_HANDOVER
>  +	bool "Test for Kexec HandOver"
>  +	default n
>  +	depends on KEXEC_HANDOVER
>  +	help
>  +	  This option enables test for Kexec HandOver (KHO).
>  +	  The test consists of two parts: saving kernel data before kexec and
>  +	  restoring the data after kexec and verifying that it was properly
>  +	  handed over. This test module creates and saves data on the boot of
>  +	  the first kernel and restores and verifies the data on the boot of
>  +	  kexec'ed kernel.
>  +
>  +	  For detailed documentation about KHO, see Documentation/core-api/kho.
>  +
>  +	  To run the test run:
>  +
>  +	  tools/testing/selftests/kho/vmtest.sh -h
>  +
>  +	  If unsure, say N.
>  +
>  +
> + config RATELIMIT_KUNIT_TEST
> + 	tristate "KUnit Test for correctness and stress of ratelimit" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> + 	depends on KUNIT
> + 	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> + 	help
> + 	  This builds the "test_ratelimit" module that should be used
> + 	  for correctness verification and concurrent testings of rate
> + 	  limiting.
> + 
> + 	  If unsure, say N.
> + 
>   config INT_POW_KUNIT_TEST
>   	tristate "Integer exponentiation (int_pow) test" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>   	depends on KUNIT

This is now a conflict between the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the paulmck tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Posted by Paul E. McKenney 2 months, 1 week ago

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:42:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the paulmck tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   lib/Kconfig.debug
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c2d288f7ab13 ("kho: add test for kexec handover")
> 
> from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   d19e9fa61f60 ("lib: Add trivial kunit test for ratelimit")
> 
> from the paulmck 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.

Thank you, and this looks plausible to me.

There is an extra blank line, but worse things could happen.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 54f11c2713b9,d69d27f80834..000000000000
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@@ -3235,27 -3225,17 +3235,38 @@@ config TEST_OBJPOO
>   
>   	  If unsure, say N.
>   
>  +config TEST_KEXEC_HANDOVER
>  +	bool "Test for Kexec HandOver"
>  +	default n
>  +	depends on KEXEC_HANDOVER
>  +	help
>  +	  This option enables test for Kexec HandOver (KHO).
>  +	  The test consists of two parts: saving kernel data before kexec and
>  +	  restoring the data after kexec and verifying that it was properly
>  +	  handed over. This test module creates and saves data on the boot of
>  +	  the first kernel and restores and verifies the data on the boot of
>  +	  kexec'ed kernel.
>  +
>  +	  For detailed documentation about KHO, see Documentation/core-api/kho.
>  +
>  +	  To run the test run:
>  +
>  +	  tools/testing/selftests/kho/vmtest.sh -h
>  +
>  +	  If unsure, say N.
>  +
>  +
> + config RATELIMIT_KUNIT_TEST
> + 	tristate "KUnit Test for correctness and stress of ratelimit" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> + 	depends on KUNIT
> + 	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> + 	help
> + 	  This builds the "test_ratelimit" module that should be used
> + 	  for correctness verification and concurrent testings of rate
> + 	  limiting.
> + 
> + 	  If unsure, say N.
> + 
>   config INT_POW_KUNIT_TEST
>   	tristate "Integer exponentiation (int_pow) test" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>   	depends on KUNIT

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the paulmck tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Posted by Mike Rapoport 2 months, 1 week ago

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:28:08PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:42:45AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the paulmck tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   lib/Kconfig.debug
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   c2d288f7ab13 ("kho: add test for kexec handover")
> > 
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:
> > 
> >   d19e9fa61f60 ("lib: Add trivial kunit test for ratelimit")
> > 
> > from the paulmck 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.
> 
> Thank you, and this looks plausible to me.
> 
> There is an extra blank line, but worse things could happen.

Yeah, what Paul said :)

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.