From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754244AbYCJNU5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:20:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753481AbYCJNUr (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:20:47 -0400 Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]:59810 "EHLO ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753939AbYCJNUq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:20:46 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 04/02/2003 (gentoo 2.7.2) with nmh-1.2 To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz cc: Anders Eriksson , Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.25-rc4 In-reply-to: <200803101336.56159.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20080308210559.0C7A193C070@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> <20080310085539.6815693C900@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> <200803101336.56159.bzolnier@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz message dated "Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:36:55 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:19:00 +0100 From: Anders Eriksson Message-Id: <20080310131901.0154B93C900@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> X-Originating-IP: 83.252.237.4 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JYhvN-0000e2-5W. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1JYhvN-0000e2-5W 34f5f335028bf4ac165beb9b4e7571ab Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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