Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:54:33 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: mmotm 2009-08-24-16-24 uploaded |
| |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:52:00 +0800 Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:02:47PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:28:30 -0700 > >akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > > > >> kcore-use-usual-list-for-kclist.patch > >> kcore-add-kclist-type.patch > >> kcore-register-vmalloc-area-in-generic-way.patch > >> kcore-register-text-area-in-generic-way.patch > >> walk-system-ram-range.patch > >> kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information.patch > >> kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information-fix.patch > >> kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information-checkpatch-fixes.patch > >> kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information-define-node__pfn-for-non-numa-builds.patch > >> kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information-fix2.patch > > > >These patches are reported to break bisection. > >If dropped, I'll remake. > > Confused... what is "break bisection"? :-/ > > But these patches were sent via two patchsets, since they > are aimed to fix one problem, IMO it's better to hold them > in one patch set, maybe this can solve some dependence > problem... > I'll try again.
The problem was kcore-register-vmalloc-area-in-generic-way.patch has lines for kcore-use-registerd-physmem-information.patch. And if kcore-register-vmalloc-area-in-generic-way.patch is applied but subsequents are not, complie will fail.
I don't like bisection(and rarely do) but, in these days, no-bisection-breakage is a fundamental manner to write series of patches.
Thanks, -Kame
Thanks, -Kame
| |