From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:55:49 +0800
Message-ID: <b6a2187b0903161655q15437156qc926c8db37d8ba4b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <MiincthRUSI.A.eKC.F4BvJB@chimera>
	 <b6a2187b0903141958u9dae0fdk1f44b387108b99e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b6a2187b0903142006u546fad9eme66f9ea7b464b81f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1237140665.24621.2.camel@johannes.local>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903151136310.3131@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1237143683.24621.7.camel@johannes.local>
	 <20090315202603.GA9077@elte.hu>
	 <b6a2187b0903160624gb9d207dv301506e589d93ed4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903161250080.3082@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=3z5AkqKedl9rWYuNgqQFwWsxNt4W6CB9R37zNK/wj0M=;
        b=jIRWAjvh5fEeEEcoMKxdcVpIjxmeUhH+1mIOXuimqOEBF0k+8cNQIEwW3nNOmUoAEh
         F0iX3HKLaSBaf+D5+VFLBbPBQdU/Uj4jXShdjQzw6XY1UmEoUIf2UFRJDhwDGF85Ya2f
         J8gcDqzneunQHJZEeqdbmRw1NNGNYKArs8rc4=
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903161250080.3082-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org>
Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-ID: <kernel-testers.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>, Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>, Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Network Development <netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, "John W. Linville" <linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> IOW, if you've pinpointed 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 as
> being bad, then you should go back and double-check that its parent
> (in this case 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f) is good.
> Because if it's parent is also bad, then that just means that you made
> some mistake in "git bisect".
> In this case, it really sounds like maybe you marked the parent good, even
> though you should have marked it bad.

I should have been more careful, just got thrown off during the last
few steps of the bisect. But with the bad association to the AP after
a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9 (iwlwifi: remove implicit
direct scan), can someone suggest where to go from here?

Meanwhile, I'll try bisecting again.

Thanks,
Jeff.