lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: WARNING in mark_lock (3)
Date
On Thursday, 28 November 2019 09:54:15 CET Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
[...]
> > I was thinking more about rerunning the same bisect but tell it to assume
> > "crashed: general protection fault in batadv_iv_ogm_queue_add" as OK instead
> > of assuming that it is a crashed like the previous "crashed: WARNING in
> > mark_lock". Just to get a non-bogus bisect result. Or try to rerun the
> > bisect between 40e220b4218b and 89d57dddd7d319ded00415790a0bb3c954b7e386
>
> But... but this done by a program. What do you mean by "tell it"?

Sorry that I asked about what the infrastructure around syzbot can do and
how the interaction with it looks like.

Kind regards,
Sven[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-28 10:04    [W:0.038 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site