Hi > On 13 Mar 2025, at 11:10 PM, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:48:32AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: >> So I am fine with this patch: >> >> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Now, the question is how to get this patch into the mainline. >> >> Normally, it would make perfect sense to queue it via the DRM tree >> because drivers/gpu/drm/tiny/appletbdrm.c is a new driver... >> >> But this time there is a conflicting patchset which is reworking >> the entire lib/test_printf.c file, see >> 20250307-printf-kunit-convert-v6-0-4d85c361c241@xxxxxxxxx >> And it will likely be ready for the next merge window as well. >> I am going to review it right away. >> >> It is even more complicated because the patchset converting >> the printf test module to KUNIT depends on another changes >> in Kees' tree (moving kunit test modules to lib/tests/). >> So it might be easier when it goes via Kees' tree. >> >> And it might be easier when even this patch goes via Kees' tree. >> >> My proposal: >> >> I suggest to separate the fourcc_pointer() test update >> to a separate patch and add it later after the merge window >> when things settle down. >> >> I mean to send the vsprintf.c, checkpatch.pl, and doc update >> via DRM tree together with the new appletbdrm.c driver. >> >> And update the selftest later when both DRM tree and KUNIT >> update reaches mainline. >> >> How does that sound, please? > > I'm happy to do whatever makes this easiest. > > If patch #1 here were rebased onto the "kunit move" tree: > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/move-kunit-tests > then I could just take it there? I already sent the 1st patch to DRM. I can rebase the test-printf bit to this tree. Sounds good?
