[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikMeyRTOB9q4PEAYWnZRZfk3wg=kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:20:54 +0200
From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
git@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuang He <shuang.he@...el.com>
Subject: Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up hard
right after logging in)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
>
> OK, this sucks. In the course of bisecting this, I've hit two other
> apparently unrelated bugs that prevent my from testing large numbers
> of kernels. Do I have two questions:
>
> 1. Anyone have any ideas from looking at the log?
>
> It looks like most of what's left is network code, so cc netdev.
>
> 2. The !&$#@ bisection is skipping all over the place. I've seen
> 2.6.37 versions and all manner of -rc's out of order. Linus, and
> other people who like pontificating about git bisection: is there any
> way to get the bisection to follow Linus' tree? I think that if
> bisect could be persuaded to consider only changes that are reached by
> following only the *first* merge parent all the way from the bad
> revision to the good revision, then the bisection would build versions
> that were at least good enough for Linus to pull and might have fewer
> bisection-killing bugs.
>
> (This isn't a new idea [1], and git rev-list --bisect --first-parent
> isn't so bad except that it doesn't bisect.)
Did you forget to put the reference [1] in your email? Was it this one
you were thinking about:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165433/
?
Thanks,
Christian.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists