From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: stackprotector tree build failure Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:31:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20081022083139.GA4369@elte.hu> References: <20081022131124.a572b11f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081022043227.GA31413@elte.hu> <20081022182149.f89fe88d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081022072923.GC27637@elte.hu> <20081022192725.5f5de711.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:53208 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752576AbYJVIb5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:31:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081022192725.5f5de711.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:29:23 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > I've Cc:-ed Junio and the Git list as a general FYI - but it must be > > frustrating to get such a bugreport, because i have no reproducer. > > > > git-rerere sometimes seems to be picking up the wrong resolution. VERY > > rarely. > > > > It seems random and content dependent. Once it happened to > > arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c and now to kernel/fork.c. Along the ~170 > > successful resolutions i have in my tree right now. And i do many > > conflict resolutions every day - and it happened only once every 6 > > months or so. > > > > (the arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c one happened regularly, that's why i > > thought it's content sha1 dependent, and not some corruption.) > > > > Next time it happens i'll be on the watchout and will save the complete > > tree. > > I think rerere matches preimages on the SHA1 of the conflict (or its > reverse), so sufficiently similar pieces of code will match. I would > expect things like ext2/3/4 to be candidates. Did the traps_32.c one > match one for traps_64.c? > > I may be mistaken, but I once followed the code in rerere to try to > figure out how to fix a resolution. the traps_32.c one was that git-rerere put in a traps_64.c end result. So i ended up with a 32-bit kernel that tried to build a 64-bit piece of code - fireworks. That condition persisted - i had to fix it up manually all the time i integrated that portion of the tree. That too was i think centered around a header file chunk - perhaps the #include section of traps_32.c and traps_64.c was similar enough in that section? Ingo