Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

John W. Linville
2009-03-17T15:00:54Z

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

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.