[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectBisecting tip/auto-x86-next?


I am trying to track down a problem I reported here:

None or you were cc'd on the original report because I had no idea of
the source of the issue. However, I have now narrowed down the problem
to the auto-x86-next tree. Thus I did something like:

$ git bisect start
$ git bisect good linus/master
$ git bisect bad tip/auto-x86-next

which resulted in only about 170 or so revisions to test (sounds better
than the 3000 or so that -next wanted me to bisect through). However,
when I tried to compile the bisect-chosen commit, I get:

In file included from include/asm/thread_info.h:5,
from include/linux/thread_info.h:47,
from include/linux/preempt.h:9,
from include/linux/spinlock.h:49,
from include/linux/seqlock.h:29,
from include/linux/time.h:8,
from include/linux/stat.h:60,
from include/linux/module.h:10,
from crypto/sha1_generic.c:20:
include/asm/thread_info_64.h: In function ‘set_restore_sigmask’:
include/asm/thread_info_64.h:189: warning: passing argument 2 of
‘set_bit’ from incompatible pointer type

Can I ignore these warnings and keep building the kernel anyway? Or is
there a way to work around this problem? Am I allowed to cherry pick a
particular commit to apply on top of the bisect-chosen commit, or will
that ruin the process? Can I manually choose a bisection point right
after this warning was fixed? Is it likely that the fix for this
warning will get rearranged in the tree before Linus pulls it so that
other don't run into this same bisection problem?

Is that enough questions?


Kevin Winchester

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-20 02:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean