Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

John W. Linville
2009-03-17T15:30:54Z

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:48:02AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 07:55:49AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > IOW, if you've pinpointed 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 as
> > > being bad, then you should go back and double-check that its parent
> > > (in this case 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f) is good.
> > > Because if it's parent is also bad, then that just means that you made
> > > some mistake in "git bisect".
> > > In this case, it really sounds like maybe you marked the parent good, even
> > > though you should have marked it bad.
> >
> > I should have been more careful, just got thrown off during the last
> > few steps of the bisect. But with the bad association to the AP after
> > a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9 (iwlwifi: remove implicit
> > direct scan), can someone suggest where to go from here?
>
> The obvious question for me is did you try this?
>
> git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9

Hmmm...more like this:

git revert 41bb73eeac5ff5fb217257ba33b654747b3abf11
git revert b23f99bcfa12c7b452f7ad201ea5921534d4e9ff
git revert 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2
git revert 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f
git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9

This first one has a conflict -- just take the hunk.

> Does that restore operation for you?

John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.