On Monday 10 March 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted text
> On Monday, 10 of March 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Monday 10 March 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote:
> > > 
> > > aeriksson@fastmail.fm said:
> > > > torvalds@linux-foundation.org said:
> > > >> I think we do want the bisect run here.
> > > >> My worry is that this is likely very timing-sensitive, so when it starts
> > > >> failing it might not be because of the commit that actually introduces the
> > > >> bug, but because some other timing changed, but with some luck that won't  
> > > >> be the case.
> > > 
> > > > I'm on it. Slow machine. Household's router, 4000 versions to go... 
> > > 
> > > 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...
> 
> Well, would that be practical to prepare a patch reverting this commit
> and whatever depends on it so that Anders can verify it?

We've already verified that 8527 just makes the problem more likely
to occur (the discussion is in the earlier "-rc3 regression" thread)
so reverting 8527 or 18a0 won't really help.

Thanks,
Bart
--
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/