* Confused - bisecting wireless-testing
@ 2010-07-27 3:27 Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-07-27 3:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2010-07-27 14:01 ` John W. Linville
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 3:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless
04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on
wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended
up with a 2.6.34 top level
Makefile
04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21
04:23 < mcgrof> eh
04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now
04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient
04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/
04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK
I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need
to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags
from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that
you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I
wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still?
Luis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 3:27 Confused - bisecting wireless-testing Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 3:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 14:01 ` John W. Linville 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@gmail.com> wrote: > 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on > wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended > up with a 2.6.34 top level > Makefile > 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 > 04:23 < mcgrof> eh > 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now > 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient > 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ > 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK > > I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need > to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags > from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that > you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I > wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? Heh I just realize what I said didn't make sense, what I meant was I was *going* to bisect but in order to first find my first good starting point I am going through the tree trying to find a good starting point to bisect and to do that I use interactive rebase (git rebase -i sha1sum) to specific sha1sums until I find a good compile that works. Only after I've done this would I then bisect. The interactive bisect on ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 throws me back to 2.6.34 though, for some odd reason. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 3:27 Confused - bisecting wireless-testing Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 3:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 14:01 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 15:56 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: linux-wireless On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on > wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended > up with a 2.6.34 top level > Makefile > 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 > 04:23 < mcgrof> eh > 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now > 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient > 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ > 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK > > I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need > to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags > from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that > you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I > wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? wireless-testing is a nasty mess when it comes to bisection. I am considering a one-time rebase of wireless-testing after the next -rc1, now that the current process is working reasonably well. wireless-testing will continue to have a messy history, but it should be a bit less nasty after a rebase. As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 instead? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 14:01 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 15:56 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 16:04 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on >> wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended >> up with a 2.6.34 top level >> Makefile >> 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 >> 04:23 < mcgrof> eh >> 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now >> 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient >> 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ >> 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK >> >> I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need >> to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags >> from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that >> you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I >> wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? > > wireless-testing is a nasty mess when it comes to bisection. > I am considering a one-time rebase of wireless-testing after the > next -rc1, now that the current process is working reasonably well. > wireless-testing will continue to have a messy history, but it should > be a bit less nasty after a rebase. > > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 > instead? Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 15:56 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 16:04 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 16:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: linux-wireless On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:56:54AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville > <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on > >> wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended > >> up with a 2.6.34 top level > >> Makefile > >> 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 > >> 04:23 < mcgrof> eh > >> 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now > >> 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient > >> 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ > >> 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK > >> > >> I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need > >> to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags > >> from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that > >> you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I > >> wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? > > > > wireless-testing is a nasty mess when it comes to bisection. > > I am considering a one-time rebase of wireless-testing after the > > next -rc1, now that the current process is working reasonably well. > > wireless-testing will continue to have a messy history, but it should > > be a bit less nasty after a rebase. > > > > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 > > instead? > > Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if > I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just > the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? Usually just the wireless bits, but I did just pull the bluetooth stuff (which included some net-next stuff). John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 16:04 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 16:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 16:31 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:56:54AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> 04:23 * mcgrof is confused, I just did a git bisect -i on >> >> wireless-testing on some patch on Fri Jul 2 00:09:49 2010 and ended >> >> up with a 2.6.34 top level >> >> Makefile >> >> 04:23 < mcgrof> it was git rebase -i ba17bc5e55ba541d2a8765fca53b6883b667ab21 >> >> 04:23 < mcgrof> eh >> >> 04:24 < mcgrof> how am I supposed to bisect wl now >> >> 04:24 < mcgrof> the odd thing though is that the top commit is ancient >> >> 04:24 < mcgrof> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/242077/ >> >> 04:24 < mcgrof> but the other ones are OK >> >> >> >> I realize we should use wireless-2.6.git to bisect stable but I need >> >> to bisect against recent patches that spans different master- tags >> >> from you, I figured git bisecting wireless-testing would work now that >> >> you are using a different method to move your tree forward but am I >> >> wrong? Should I only bisect between master tags still? >> > >> > wireless-testing is a nasty mess when it comes to bisection. >> > I am considering a one-time rebase of wireless-testing after the >> > next -rc1, now that the current process is working reasonably well. >> > wireless-testing will continue to have a messy history, but it should >> > be a bit less nasty after a rebase. >> > >> > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 >> > instead? >> >> Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if >> I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just >> the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? > > Usually just the wireless bits, but I did just pull the bluetooth stuff > (which included some net-next stuff). Oh neat. OK so which net-next.git release was wireless-next.git based on and what net-next.git release was bluetooth-next.git based on? Did it bump your next-next.git or do you routinely pull next-next.git into your own wireless-next.git? Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 16:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 16:31 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: linux-wireless On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:21:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John W. Linville > <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:56:54AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville > >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > >> > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 > >> > instead? > >> > >> Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if > >> I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just > >> the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? > > > > Usually just the wireless bits, but I did just pull the bluetooth stuff > > (which included some net-next stuff). > > Oh neat. OK so which net-next.git release was wireless-next.git based > on and what net-next.git release was bluetooth-next.git based on? Did > it bump your next-next.git or do you routinely pull next-next.git into > your own wireless-next.git? I don't have those exact commit IDs. How badly do you need them? I don't normally pull net-next into wireless-next, but this release not doing that has been a source of pain due to the __packed patch in net-next and the addition of __attribute__ ((packed)) in various places in wireless-next. Since Marcel had already based on a net-next that had that patch and since it is close to the end of the release I decided it would be acceptable to pull it this time. I have been considering making regular net-next pulls a standard practice. That would make my life easier, but would add some non-wireless instability into wireless-testing (which pulls from wireless-next). I don't think that would be a big problem _most_ of the time, but I'm sure there would be some occasional pain from doing that. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 16:31 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 17:18 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless, David Miller On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:21:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John W. Linville >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:56:54AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:01 AM, John W. Linville >> >> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > >> >> > As for right now, it sounds like you should just use wireless-next-2.6 >> >> > instead? >> >> >> >> Oh OK, didn't realize that was bisectable, thanks. Also was unsure if >> >> I'd get other subsystems's -next components. Is wireless-next.git just >> >> the -next bits for 802.11 or does it also suck up net-next? >> > >> > Usually just the wireless bits, but I did just pull the bluetooth stuff >> > (which included some net-next stuff). >> >> Oh neat. OK so which net-next.git release was wireless-next.git based >> on and what net-next.git release was bluetooth-next.git based on? Did >> it bump your next-next.git or do you routinely pull next-next.git into >> your own wireless-next.git? > > I don't have those exact commit IDs. How badly do you need them? I don't at all, was just interested to know if they were indeed different and how each differ in terms of pulling new net-next.git bits from future next-(date -I) releases. > I don't normally pull net-next into wireless-next, but this release > not doing that has been a source of pain due to the __packed patch > in net-next and the addition of __attribute__ ((packed)) in various > places in wireless-next. Since Marcel had already based on a net-next > that had that patch and since it is close to the end of the release > I decided it would be acceptable to pull it this time. Ah I see. > I have been considering making regular net-next pulls a standard > practice. That would make my life easier, but would add some > non-wireless instability into wireless-testing (which pulls from > wireless-next). I don't think that would be a big problem _most_ > of the time, but I'm sure there would be some occasional pain from > doing that. Thanks for the details. Yeah indeed my concern over bisecting wireless-next.git would have been testing other bleeding edge non-802.11 / BT subsystem stuff, things in net core, but relying on the master-(date -I) tags sufficed for me to bisect an issue down to early June. Think I'll stick to that for now but I suppose we should not fear using next-next.git as much given that we now have both 802.11 and BT So I guess the next question is where does David base his net-next.git off from? Will it only include 802.11 / Ethernet / Wimax / netcore / etc next bits or is there more? I ask to know what I'm in for in case I want to bisect from it or derivatives (wireless-next.git). Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 17:18 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 17:36 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: linux-wireless, David Miller On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:54:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > So I guess the next question is where does David base his net-next.git > off from? Will it only include 802.11 / Ethernet / Wimax / netcore / > etc next bits or is there more? I ask to know what I'm in for in case > I want to bisect from it or derivatives (wireless-next.git). Generally he branches from linux-2.6 at around -rc1 (and sometimes before) and then doesn't pull again until after the release. -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Confused - bisecting wireless-testing 2010-07-27 17:18 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-07-27 17:36 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2010-07-27 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: linux-wireless, David Miller On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:54:20AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> So I guess the next question is where does David base his net-next.git >> off from? Will it only include 802.11 / Ethernet / Wimax / netcore / >> etc next bits or is there more? I ask to know what I'm in for in case >> I want to bisect from it or derivatives (wireless-next.git). > > Generally he branches from linux-2.6 at around -rc1 (and sometimes > before) and then doesn't pull again until after the release. Thanks this helps a lot! Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-27 17:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-07-27 3:27 Confused - bisecting wireless-testing Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 3:30 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 14:01 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 15:56 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 16:04 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 16:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 16:31 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 16:54 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2010-07-27 17:18 ` John W. Linville 2010-07-27 17:36 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).