linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug validation

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: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 14:22:27 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Petr Tesařík
 <petr@...arici.cz>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: new text on bisecting which also covers bug
 validation

On 01.03.24 09:41, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Add a second document on bisecting regressions explaining the whole
> process from beginning to end -- while also describing how to validate
> if a problem is still present in mainline.  This "two in one" approach
> is possible, as checking whenever a bug is in mainline is one of the
> first steps before performing a bisection anyway and thus needs to be
> described. Due to this approach the text also works quite nicely in
> conjunction with Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, as it
> covers all typical cases where users will need to build a kernel in
> exactly the same order.
> [...]
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> index ed8a629e59c86a..c53bb6e36291b8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> -=================================================

Just saw that, that line obviously was not meant to be removed. Sorry.

Jonathan, in case you consider merging this "soon", as suggested
yesterday by  Vegard, could you please fix this up? Otherwise I'll fix
this with v3.

Ciao, Thorsten