netdev - Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:39:24 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28


* John W. Linville <linville@...driver.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:48:02AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 07:55:49AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > IOW, if you've pinpointed 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 as
> > > > being bad, then you should go back and double-check that its parent
> > > > (in this case 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f) is good.
> > > > Because if it's parent is also bad, then that just means that you made
> > > > some mistake in "git bisect".
> > > > In this case, it really sounds like maybe you marked the parent good, even
> > > > though you should have marked it bad.
> > > 
> > > I should have been more careful, just got thrown off during the last
> > > few steps of the bisect. But with the bad association to the AP after
> > > a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9 (iwlwifi: remove implicit
> > > direct scan), can someone suggest where to go from here?
> > 
> > The obvious question for me is did you try this?
> > 
> > 	git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9
> 
> Hmmm...more like this:
> 
> git revert 41bb73eeac5ff5fb217257ba33b654747b3abf11
> git revert b23f99bcfa12c7b452f7ad201ea5921534d4e9ff
> git revert 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2
> git revert 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f
> git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9
>  
> This first one has a conflict -- just take the hunk.

Since you apparently have done this sequence and have
resolved the conflict (which is hard to do for testers
even in trivial cases) - would you mind to post the
resulting combo patch for Jeff to test?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html