[v3.8 Regression] Merge tag 'v3.7-rc2' into drm-intel-next-queued

[v3.8 Regression] Merge tag 'v3.7-rc2' into drm-intel-next-queued

[Joseph Salisbury]

Hi Daniel,

A bug was opened against the Ubuntu kernel[0].  After a kernel bisect, 
it was found the following was the first bad commit:


commit c2fb7916927e989ea424e61ce5fe617e54878827
Merge: 29de6ce 6f0c058
Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Date:   Mon Oct 22 14:34:51 2012 +0200

     Merge tag 'v3.7-rc2' into drm-intel-next-queued



The regression was introduced as of v3.8-rc1.  However, further testing 
also shows this bug is now fixed in v3.9-rc4.

I see that you are the author of this patch, so I wanted see if I can 
get your feedback.  Do you happen to have an idea what may have fixed 
this in v3.9-rc4, so we can send a request to stable, if not already 
done?  Otherwise, I can perform a reverse bisect to see which commit 
fixed this.


Thanks,

Joe

[0] http://pad.lv/1109309

Re: [v3.8 Regression] Merge tag 'v3.7-rc2' into drm-intel-next-queued

[Joseph Salisbury]

On 04/03/2013 03:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Joseph Salisbury 
> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com 
> <mailto:joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Daniel,
>
>     A bug was opened against the Ubuntu kernel[0].  After a kernel
>     bisect, it was found the following was the first bad commit:
>
>
>     commit c2fb7916927e989ea424e61ce5fe617e54878827
>     Merge: 29de6ce 6f0c058
>     Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
>     <mailto:daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>>
>     Date:   Mon Oct 22 14:34:51 2012 +0200
>
>         Merge tag 'v3.7-rc2' into drm-intel-next-queued
>
>
>
>     The regression was introduced as of v3.8-rc1.  However, further
>     testing also shows this bug is now fixed in v3.9-rc4.
>
>     I see that you are the author of this patch, so I wanted see if I
>     can get your feedback.  Do you happen to have an idea what may
>     have fixed this in v3.9-rc4, so we can send a request to stable,
>     if not already done?  Otherwise, I can perform a reverse bisect to
>     see which commit fixed this.
>
>
> So apparently it's an oops somewhere in the nouveau setup code, which 
> bisected to a backmerge which has _only_ conflicts in drm/i915 driver 
> code.
>
> I have no idea what blew up here, sorry.
> -Daniel

Thanks for the info, Daniel.  I'll go the reverse bisect route.

>
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Joe
>
>     [0] http://pad.lv/1109309
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch