From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linusw/for-next boot bisection: v5.2-rc1-8-g73a790c68d7e on
 rk3288-veyron-jaq
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 14:15:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20190528131504.GI2456@sirena.org.uk>
References: <5cec74e8.1c69fb81.37335.9d7b@mx.google.com>
 <0edab48f-06e5-9ed8-09be-7c9976ae1afb@collabora.com>
 <CAMuHMdUF1Csi1ZMccOj=kurijMLcA6G+TP_spsE+fnMvZR71Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <de92e3bd-70e8-fcba-3c88-c04170704e7b@collabora.com>
 <CACRpkdb-Dv614V7STLRMpiLkmb_7NVyKnh2oUi=7Rx366tmZ-A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G3juXO9GfR42w+sw"
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdb-Dv614V7STLRMpiLkmb_7NVyKnh2oUi=7Rx366tmZ-A@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>, Matt Hart <matthew.hart@linaro.org>, mgalka@collabora.com, Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org


--G3juXO9GfR42w+sw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:45:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Guillaume Tucker

> > Not really, so I've disabled bisections in the linux-gpio tree
> > and a few other maintainers' trees for now.  I'll see if we can
> > come up with a more systematic way of suppressing bisections in
> > similar cases (i.e. the issue has been fixed in mainline later
> > than the base commit for the branch being tested).

> I think this is what the zeroday autobuilder does because
> they never seem to show this problem. Thanks for looking
> into it!

I've got a feeling they do this by deduping after doing the bisection;
they also used to have a system where they'd merge a bunch of trees
together and do the bisect on that to save repeating bisects.

--G3juXO9GfR42w+sw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlztNFQACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CnRwf/ee3CvNVsnpAeOOZn7++IRM1ltd0gFGJR8JS1aeptgeYX4Iy+LiyjV8CO
ocs2H9W1CPO8oNd45rV709U1T5MzUpy8dPN306+3dPtB+etG8MXvBGSfoSx3oX0t
wCZJaDgS/eakIS3nyhwsm4kYrFbOmG8hEjN22pcXugB6++1JPKXDQEC6bVxdJUVo
meiYp9AR6PrYDDALwLSw+Hr5PJxOchP/x0azRWqDQ8xqICHaNkhYo2kV1uTF2nBg
Y83I4nrNv4JOj+BSH+52Bys+uA8lT2daypGmuX3LVB/mILWA22w9R4uogPNk5uEg
hcNuHlAgis5PMVLlC8S8D6U3j4wUIw==
=/CjW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--G3juXO9GfR42w+sw--