[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190528131504.GI2456@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 14:15:04 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Matt Hart <matthew.hart@...aro.org>, mgalka@...labora.com,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on
rk3288-veyron-jaq
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:45:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Guillaume Tucker
> > 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).
> I think this is what the zeroday autobuilder does because
> they never seem to show this problem. Thanks for looking
> into it!
I've got a feeling they do this by deduping after doing the bisection;
they also used to have a system where they'd merge a bunch of trees
together and do the bisect on that to save repeating bisects.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists