From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc2: Reported regressions from 2.6.32 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:23:35 +0200 Message-ID: <84144f021001170923o30d37becw57ebbd780f63b69e@mail.gmail.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=te86at0K9I5hs+f/dwgHlGnvYp5FNQDFNSu+LA7ty7I=; b=N3/eUGWjR4aHrovgBek1gN8mX4GTAqUDgFb7q7gfaQ4LaMQSZI2Zd4tMomb+zTB42h 1+cq9FARa3e2Yxn/FVnx94/oZHFLADvGAsfKFr+TwXVYclUj1hVp1OmGPpP774EZLlLL mRHaEU1vSzkBJwG9bQyAzboMEPM8+C7PU7CeQ= In-Reply-To: <84144f021001170843s67afae24oaabf09e9b13af8db-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: Florian Mickler Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus Torvalds , Jesse Barnes , "Michael S. Tsirkin" 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.