From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Chua Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:55:49 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1237140665.24621.2.camel@johannes.local> <1237143683.24621.7.camel@johannes.local> <20090315202603.GA9077@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Johannes Berg , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Network Development , "John W. Linville" To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds 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? Meanwhile, I'll try bisecting again. Thanks, Jeff.