![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sunday 16 March 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: > > bzolnier@gmail.com said: > > This commit is also _after_ the previously "guilty" one (commit > > 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555)? > > Yep. > > > IIRC we've agreed that bisection between 2.6.24 and commit 8527* was needed? > > I did that first, and it pointed to 8527* as the bad one. During this bisect > I took care to always start from a 2.6.24 .config, and do a make oldconfig from > that. A clean series of good emerged.. Unfortunately I don't have the configs > from the previous runs saved. > > Given this, I concluded that the configs had to play a role in making a > version go bad, so I decided to do another one between 8527* and 2.6.25-rc1 > always based on the 8527* config (which _worked_ when tested with the 2.6.24 > config dragged forward. So the upped end of the first bisect was badly chosen) > > The attahed was the result of that latter run... Given that the problem manifested with 8527* in the past (w/ whatever config) then 4d97* just cannot be a guilty commit (== the one introducing the problem). IOW the 8527* and later commits just make the issue more likely to occur (moreover there should be no difference in configs between 8527* and 4d97*). I guess that re-doing bisection between 2.6.24 and 8527* may be fruitless but maybe somebody has some idea how we can proceed further with debugging the hang instead? Jens/Ingo? Thanks, Bart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-16 16:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||