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, 28 May 2019 10:41:48 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <>
To:     Guillaume Tucker <>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <>,
        Heiko Stuebner <>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <>,
        Linux PM list <>,
        Kevin Hilman <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Elaine Zhang <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Eduardo Valentin <>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <>,
        Mark Brown <>,
        Matt Hart <>,,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <>,
        Zhang Rui <>,
        Linux ARM <>
Subject: Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on rk3288-veyron-jaq

Hi Guillaume,

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Guillaume Tucker
<> wrote:
> On 28/05/2019 08:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:13 AM Guillaume Tucker
> > <> wrote:
> >> This commit has now been reverted in mainline.  Would it be OK
> >> for you to rebase your for-next branch on v5.2-rc2 or cherry-pick
> >> the revert to avoid recurring bisections?
> >>
> >> Ideally this should have been fixed or reverted in mainline
> >> before v5.2-rc1 was released, or even earlier when this was first
> >> found in -next on 13th May.  Unfortunately it was overlooked and
> >> then spread to other branches like yours.
> >
> > I'm afraid it's gonna spread to even more for-next branches, as most
> > subsystem maintainers base their for-next branch on the previous rc1
> > release.  Typically maintainers do not rebase their for-next branches,
> > and do not cherry-pick fixes, unless they are critical for their
> > subsystem.  So you can expect this to show up in e.g. the m68k for-next
> > branch soon...
> That is what I feared, thanks for confirming.
> > Can't you mark this as a known issue, to prevent spending cycles on the
> > same bisection, and sending out more bisection reports for the same
> > issue?
> Not really, so I've disabled bisections in the linux-gpio tree
> and a few other maintainers' trees for now.  I'll see if we can
> come up with a more systematic way of suppressing bisections in
> similar cases (i.e. the issue has been fixed in mainline later
> than the base commit for the branch being tested).

Having a systematic way would be good, else you will have to disable
most other maintainers' trees soon, severely limiting test coverage,
or fall back to linux-next testing only, as linux-next will always include\
latest mainline.




Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Powered by blists - more mailing lists