All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] bisecting with wireless-testing
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:44:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090819184431.GH5905@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090819183416.GE7126@mosca>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:34:16AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Renaming subject and adding linux-wireless.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:58:09AM -0700, John W. Linville wrote:

> > It should not be necessary to bisect through reverts.  I maintain
> > different tags for such purposes.
> >
> > Always use the lastest merge-* tag as the base for bisection.
> > This should be equivalent to whichever -rc release from Linus is the
> > current base for wireless-testing.  If you need to go any earlier
> > than that, you should be using linux-2.6.
> >
> > So for example with current tree:
> > 
> >         git bisect start
> >         git bisect bad master-2009-08-19
> >         git bisect good merge-2009-08-14
> > 
> > This should include all of the current wireless patches in
> > wireless-testing but not in the base linux-2.6 kernel.
> 
> This does indeed help alot. Just to be clear let me provide an
> example. So say git tag -l | grep merge | tail -3 yields:
> 
> merge-2009-07-24
> merge-2009-08-03
> merge-2009-08-14
> 
> I believe what you are indicating if you are bisecting using to avoid
> running into the reverts you'd have to ensure then that you bisect between
> a bad commit and the next dated merge tag. So if you ran into a snag say
> on master-2009-08-06, you should test if merge-2009-08-03 is good first,
> and if its not then consider using linux-2.6.git ? If so wouldn't
> the code on master-2009-08-06 not yet be available on linux-2.6.git?

If you look, merge-2009-08-03 is identical to 2.6.31-rc5:

	git diff merge-2009-08-03..v2.6.31-rc5

So if you have a problem in master-2009-08-06, then either the
problem exists in v2.6.31-rc5 or it is between merge-2009-08-03 and
master-2009-08-06.  (Read the tags carefully, they look similar.)

The point is, it never makes sense to use a good marker any
farther back than the most recent merge-* tag when trying to bisect
wireless-testing.  Otherwise, all the reverts and such will cause
confusion.  If the problem still exists at the most recent merge-*
tag, then the problem is in linux-2.6 and should be bisected there.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville at tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
Cc: Luis Rodriguez <Luis.Rodriguez@Atheros.com>,
	Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>,
	"ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bisecting with wireless-testing
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:44:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090819184431.GH5905@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090819183416.GE7126@mosca>

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:34:16AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Renaming subject and adding linux-wireless.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:58:09AM -0700, John W. Linville wrote:

> > It should not be necessary to bisect through reverts.  I maintain
> > different tags for such purposes.
> >
> > Always use the lastest merge-* tag as the base for bisection.
> > This should be equivalent to whichever -rc release from Linus is the
> > current base for wireless-testing.  If you need to go any earlier
> > than that, you should be using linux-2.6.
> >
> > So for example with current tree:
> > 
> >         git bisect start
> >         git bisect bad master-2009-08-19
> >         git bisect good merge-2009-08-14
> > 
> > This should include all of the current wireless patches in
> > wireless-testing but not in the base linux-2.6 kernel.
> 
> This does indeed help alot. Just to be clear let me provide an
> example. So say git tag -l | grep merge | tail -3 yields:
> 
> merge-2009-07-24
> merge-2009-08-03
> merge-2009-08-14
> 
> I believe what you are indicating if you are bisecting using to avoid
> running into the reverts you'd have to ensure then that you bisect between
> a bad commit and the next dated merge tag. So if you ran into a snag say
> on master-2009-08-06, you should test if merge-2009-08-03 is good first,
> and if its not then consider using linux-2.6.git ? If so wouldn't
> the code on master-2009-08-06 not yet be available on linux-2.6.git?

If you look, merge-2009-08-03 is identical to 2.6.31-rc5:

	git diff merge-2009-08-03..v2.6.31-rc5

So if you have a problem in master-2009-08-06, then either the
problem exists in v2.6.31-rc5 or it is between merge-2009-08-03 and
master-2009-08-06.  (Read the tags carefully, they look similar.)

The point is, it never makes sense to use a good marker any
farther back than the most recent merge-* tag when trying to bisect
wireless-testing.  Otherwise, all the reverts and such will cause
confusion.  If the problem still exists at the most recent merge-*
tag, then the problem is in linux-2.6 and should be bisected there.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-08-19 18:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-13  1:16 [ath9k-devel] Disconnect problem (DMA failed to stop in 10 ms) Michael Gruber
2009-08-13  3:45 ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-13  3:54   ` Sujith
2009-08-13  4:22     ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-13  5:21       ` Sujith
2009-08-13  5:40         ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-18 18:16           ` Kunal Gangakhedkar
2009-08-18 21:04             ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-18 21:07               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-08-18 21:15                 ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-18 21:24                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-08-18 21:45                     ` Pavel Roskin
2009-08-18 21:57                       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-08-19 17:58                         ` John W. Linville
2009-08-19 18:34                           ` [ath9k-devel] bisecting with wireless-testing Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-08-19 18:34                             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2009-08-19 18:44                             ` John W. Linville [this message]
2009-08-19 18:44                               ` John W. Linville
2009-08-20  7:13               ` [ath9k-devel] Disconnect problem (DMA failed to stop in 10 ms) Kunal Gangakhedkar
2009-08-19  3:51             ` Sujith
2009-08-20  7:14               ` Kunal Gangakhedkar
2009-08-24 20:58               ` Kunal Gangakhedkar
2009-09-11 15:42                 ` Kunal Gangakhedkar
2009-08-13  7:59         ` Kunal Gangakhedkar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090819184431.GH5905@tuxdriver.com \
    --to=linville@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.