Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.25-rc4 | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:19:00 +0100 | From | Anders Eriksson <> |
| |
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
| |