Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 2.6.39 - early Oops

[Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>]

On 2011-03-25 09:37, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2011.03.25 at 08:23 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2011-03-24 22:41, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>> On 2011.03.24 at 22:01 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 2011-03-24 21:06, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>> On 2011.03.24 at 20:57 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, still a data point. What was the last -git kernel you used?
>>>>>
>>>>> This one was the last and gave me no problems:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit b81a618dcd3ea99de292dbe624f41ca68f464376
>>>>> Merge: 2f284c8 a9712bc
>>>>> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
>>>>> Date:   Wed Mar 23 20:51:42 2011 -0700
>>>>>
>>>>>     Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6
>>>>
>>>> Puzzling... Poking at straws here so far. Does this make any difference
>>>> whatsoever?
>>>
>>> I will test your patch later.
>>>
>>> Git-bisect gave me this result thus far:
>>>
>>> 9026e521c0da0731eb31f9f9022dd00cc3cd8885 is bad
>>> 82f04ab47e1d94d78503591a7460b2cad9601ede is good
>>>
>>> When I continue the bisection with 4345caba340f051e10847924fc078ae18ed6695c
>>> the system will start normally, but it then silently corrupts my xfs
>>> partitions. And on next (re)boot I get this (only fixable with
>>> xfs_repair):
>>>
>> How confident are you in those bisection results? Not trying to put you
>> on the spot, just wondering whether you tested and it's completely
>> consistent, or whether it was a one-off.
> 
> Just double checked and 82f04ab47e1d94d78503591a7460b2cad9601ede is also
> bad. It just silently corrupts the file system (without a BUG) and I
> didn't notice.
> So back to square one. 
> 
> How can I tell git-bisect just to try the commits in the block merge and
> not to take wild swings in history?

Something like:

$ git bisect start
$ git bisect good 3dab04e6978e358ad2307bca563fabd6c5d2c58b
$ git bisect bad 6c5103890057b1bb781b26b7aae38d33e4c517d8

-- 
Jens Axboe