Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

Ingo Molnar
2009-03-17T15:41:48Z

* John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:

> 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.

Since you apparently have done this sequence and have
resolved the conflict (which is hard to do for testers
even in trivial cases) - would you mind to post the
resulting combo patch for Jeff to test?

Ingo