From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc2: Reported regressions from 2.6.32 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:26:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20100118112619.GA8387@redhat.com> References: <20100116174821.GA18306@redhat.com> <201001162257.16277.rjw@sisk.pl> <20100117123218.GA3182@redhat.com> <84144f021001170618g708a7c14ob1b222ab1cbdaa20@mail.gmail.com> <20100117161726.5752b181@schatten.dmk.lab> <84144f021001170843s67afae24oaabf09e9b13af8db@mail.gmail.com> <84144f021001170923o30d37becw57ebbd780f63b69e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=xR08Rkn3DQhc7yjAw14Eex3xNzfQcWdM+nXG+/oZPG8=; b=jLwyJxkHY+p3xL2MCEQgq9EFAvgeTaAZ44lh6sp84pyiq0THDnvjkOlGx8Y6aBAtDs 9DFdj+tpPzxBndRGai+Ce3oer+PO8mE3lYVukOQqY30blap5Q6c4YFZWwqyS2CxNVqJG mNi+NetpMslZpcdZmj5KyAXgk6j+lXPTwgg7g= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f021001170923o30d37becw57ebbd780f63b69e-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Florian Mickler , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus Torvalds , Jesse Barnes On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 07:23:35PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Hi Florian, > > > > (Please don't trim the cc list.) > > > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Florian Mickler wrote: > >> on which side of the merge? linus or drm? > >> i.e. it is to be expected to be before the merge, (but on the drm side) > >> so don't get confused... or did i misunderstood the situation? > > > > Like I said, don't read too much into the results but the current > > situation looks like the regression happened _after_ 2.6.32 but before > > any of the DRM code was merged to 2.6.33-rc1. I don't think that makes > > much sense which is why I'm back to testing 2.6.32 more to see if the > > bug is there already but just harder to trigger for whatever reason. > > OK, confirmed. I can see the "flashing" bug with 2.6.32 as well. It > just takes more time to trigger than in 2.6.33-rc1. I am going back to > test 2.6.31 now. Well, I've been using 2.6.32 day to day since it came out and never saw this bug there. What do you do to trigger this bug? -- MST