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

quoted text
> 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



--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/