lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.25-rc4
Date
From

bzolnier@gmail.com said:
>> The bisect came up with this:
>>
>> 18a056feccabdfa9764016a615121b194828bc72 is first bad commit
>> commit 18a056feccabdfa9764016a615121b194828bc72

> Hmm, this is the first commit _after_ the previous "guilty" commit
> 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555 so it just can't be the "real bad"
> one...

I share the same worry. Towards the end of the bisect run (something like the
4-th last reboot), I was asked to try "2.6.24". Now, I _thought_ 2.6.24 was way
before 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555, and hence it should be called
2.X.Y-foobaz something as the others were. Is this the way it should be, or did
I fscked up the bisect?

This was a bisect run between 852738f39.. and 2.5.25-rc1. I got a string of
"bad"s but TWO goods, actually. Those goods sustained a number of reruns of
smartd (I can share the BISECT_LOG if wanted).

And how we can end up with good_start+1 as the guilty one, and STILL have two
good ones during the bisect run..... That's beyond me. lets just say that my
faith in myself and/or bisect starts to decline...

Now I'm considering a 2.6.24 .. 8527 run.
/A


/A





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-10 14:23    [W:0.068 / U:2.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site