[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080310131901.0154B93C900@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:19:00 +0100
From: Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@...tmail.fm>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
cc: Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@...tmail.fm>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.25-rc4
bzolnier@...il.com said:
>> The bisect came up with this:
>>
>> 18a056feccabdfa9764016a615121b194828bc72 is first bad commit
>> commit 18a056feccabdfa9764016a615121b194828bc72
> Hmm, this is the first commit _after_ the previous "guilty" commit
> 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555 so it just can't be the "real bad"
> one...
I share the same worry. Towards the end of the bisect run (something like the
4-th last reboot), I was asked to try "2.6.24". Now, I _thought_ 2.6.24 was way
before 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555, and hence it should be called
2.X.Y-foobaz something as the others were. Is this the way it should be, or did
I fscked up the bisect?
This was a bisect run between 852738f39.. and 2.5.25-rc1. I got a string of
"bad"s but TWO goods, actually. Those goods sustained a number of reruns of
smartd (I can share the BISECT_LOG if wanted).
And how we can end up with good_start+1 as the guilty one, and STILL have two
good ones during the bisect run..... That's beyond me. lets just say that my
faith in myself and/or bisect starts to decline...
Now I'm considering a 2.6.24 .. 8527 run.
/A
/A
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists