From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (part 2) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:04:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20070302080441.GA12785@elte.hu> References: <20070227102109.GG6745@elf.ucw.cz> <20070227103021.GA2250@kernel.dk> <20070227103407.GA17819@elte.hu> <20070227105922.GD2250@kernel.dk> <20070227111515.GA4271@kernel.dk> <20070301093450.GA8508@elte.hu> <20070301104117.GA22788@elte.hu> <20070301145204.GA25304@elte.hu> <20070302072100.GB30634@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070302072100.GB30634@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Walker , Michal Piotrowski , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Pavel Machek , Jens Axboe , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > I'll try what i've described in the previous mail: mark all bisection = > points that do not include f3ccb06f as 'good' - thus 'merging' the = > known-bad area with the first known-good commit, and thus eliminating = > it from the bisection space. this got me quite a bit further: git-bisect start git-bisect bad 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d git-bisect good f3ccb06f3b8e0cf42b579db21f3ca7f17fcc3f38 = git-bisect fake-good ee404566f97f9254433399fbbcfa05390c7c55f7 git-bisect bad d43a338e395371733a80ec473b40baac5f74d768 git-bisect bad 255f0385c8e0d6b9005c0e09fffb5bd852f3b506 git-bisect fake-good f99c6bb6e2e9c35bd3dc0b1d0faa28bd6970930d git-bisect fake-good 0187f221e96e3436d552c0c7143f183eb82fb658 git-bisect bad 81450b73dde07f473a4a7208b209b4c8b7251d90 git-bisect fake-good ef29498655b18d2bfd69048e20835d19333981ab git-bisect fake-good 8a03d9a498eaf02c8a118752050a5154852c13bf git-bisect good 5c95d3f5783ab184f64b7848f0a871352c35c3cf git-bisect good ecb5f7521a309cb9c5fc0832b9705cd2a03d7d45 git-bisect good 0539771d7236b425f285652f6f297cc7939c8f9a 81450b73dde07f473a4a7208b209b4c8b7251d90 is first bad commit [ note: by having the "git-bisect must-have-bugfix f3ccb06f" = functionality i mentioned in the previous mail git-bisect could have eliminated the fake-good steps. ] it's not a resolution of this regression yet, because this commit is a = merge with upstream: | commit 81450b73dde07f473a4a7208b209b4c8b7251d90 | Merge: 8a03d9a... 0539771... | Author: Len Brown | Date: Fri Feb 16 18:52:41 2007 -0500 | | Pull misc-for-upstream into release branch which means that the fix in Len's tree got broken by merging with = upstream. Note: this 'upstream' in isolation is broken too, due to not = having that essential fix from Len's tree! So we quite likely have /two/ bugs, any of which breaks resume (which = breakage looks the same, so no way to isolate them via testing). I'll now try the following: i'll try to manually apply Len's fix to = every tree that git-bisect offers me, in the hope of being able to = isolate the /other/ bug. [ But really, i'm not expecting any miracles because this is way out of league for git-bisect which really depends on only having a binary = space to search for. ] Ingo