From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:59383 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753030AbZHSSpM (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:45:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:44:31 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Luis Rodriguez , Pavel Roskin , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bisecting with wireless-testing Message-ID: <20090819184431.GH5905@tuxdriver.com> References: <1250142042.2352.26.camel@ct> <200908182346.29416.kunal.gangakhedkar@gmail.com> <1250629490.7534.20.camel@mj> <43e72e890908181407w2d658392w1f61b7f37beb04d1@mail.gmail.com> <1250630158.7534.29.camel@mj> <43e72e890908181424l770b3356ie990e9cadcb39877@mail.gmail.com> <1250631900.7534.44.camel@mj> <20090818215748.GJ20633@mosca> <20090819175809.GD5905@tuxdriver.com> <20090819183416.GE7126@mosca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20090819183416.GE7126@mosca> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:34:16AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Renaming subject and adding linux-wireless. > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:58:09AM -0700, John W. Linville wrote: > > It should not be necessary to bisect through reverts. I maintain > > different tags for such purposes. > > > > Always use the lastest merge-* tag as the base for bisection. > > This should be equivalent to whichever -rc release from Linus is the > > current base for wireless-testing. If you need to go any earlier > > than that, you should be using linux-2.6. > > > > So for example with current tree: > > > > git bisect start > > git bisect bad master-2009-08-19 > > git bisect good merge-2009-08-14 > > > > This should include all of the current wireless patches in > > wireless-testing but not in the base linux-2.6 kernel. > > This does indeed help alot. Just to be clear let me provide an > example. So say git tag -l | grep merge | tail -3 yields: > > merge-2009-07-24 > merge-2009-08-03 > merge-2009-08-14 > > I believe what you are indicating if you are bisecting using to avoid > running into the reverts you'd have to ensure then that you bisect between > a bad commit and the next dated merge tag. So if you ran into a snag say > on master-2009-08-06, you should test if merge-2009-08-03 is good first, > and if its not then consider using linux-2.6.git ? If so wouldn't > the code on master-2009-08-06 not yet be available on linux-2.6.git? If you look, merge-2009-08-03 is identical to 2.6.31-rc5: git diff merge-2009-08-03..v2.6.31-rc5 So if you have a problem in master-2009-08-06, then either the problem exists in v2.6.31-rc5 or it is between merge-2009-08-03 and master-2009-08-06. (Read the tags carefully, they look similar.) The point is, it never makes sense to use a good marker any farther back than the most recent merge-* tag when trying to bisect wireless-testing. Otherwise, all the reverts and such will cause confusion. If the problem still exists at the most recent merge-* tag, then the problem is in linux-2.6 and should be bisected there. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.