linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the tip tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the tip tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c

between commit:

  076361362122 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")

from the tip tree and commit:

  8e222dcf92a8 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")

from the kselftest tree.

Slightly different versions of the same patch (whitespace differences).

I fixed it up (I (arbitrarily) 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 kselftest tree with the tip tree

[Shuah Khan]

On 4/11/24 23:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    076361362122 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>    8e222dcf92a8 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")
> 
> from the kselftest tree.
> 

Thank you. I dropped 8e222dcf92a8 from linux-kselftest next

> Slightly different versions of the same patch (whitespace differences).
> 
> I fixed it up (I (arbitrarily) 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.
> 

thanks,
-- Shuah